Post on 28-Apr-2018
Tennessee Valley Authority Kingston
Fossil Plant Coal Ash Release Natural
Resource Damage Assessment
Restoration and Compensation
Determination Plan
Final | 26 May 2015
prepared by:
Natural Resource Trustees of the Tennessee Valley
Authority Kingston Fossil Plant Coal Ash Release
Natural Resource Damage Assessment:
State of Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation
Tennessee Valley Authority
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
with assistance from:
Rachel DelVecchio, Jessica Fydenkevez, and
Thomas Timberlake
Industrial Economics, Incorporated
2067 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02140
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF EXHIBITS
LIST OF ACRONYMS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose of RCDP 1
1.2 Organization of this Chapter 1
1.3 Overview of the TVA Kingston Ash Spill and Related Dredging 1
1.4 Trusteeship and Coordination with the Responsible Party 5
1.5 Compliance with other Authorities 6
1.6 NRDA Relationship to Remedial Activities 6
1.7 Public Participation 7
1.8 Organization of this RCDP 8
CHAPTER 2 SUMMARY OF NATURAL RESOURCE INJURIES AND SERVICE LOSSES 9
2.1 Assessment Area 9
2.2 Natural Resources 11
2.3 Natural Resource Injury 12
2.3.1 Contaminant-Related Injury 12
2.3.2 Ash-Smothering and Dredging 13
2.3.3 Recreational Losses 18
CHAPTER 3 RESTORATION OBJECTIVES AND PROPOSED RESTORATION
ALTERNATIVES 20
3.1 Swan Pond Embayment Restoration and Recreation Park 20
3.1.1 Ecological Services: Habitat Restoration, Creation and Preservation 21
3.1.2 Recreation Services: Boat Ramp, Fishing and Canoe/Kayak Access 23
3.1.3 Monitoring and Adaptive Management of Ecological Restoration at Swan Pond 26
3.2 $750,000 Cash Payment for Restoration 27
3.3 Proposed Restoration Alternatives 27
3.3.1 Alternative A: No Action / Natural Recovery 27
3.3.2 Alternative B: Habitat Restoration within the Emory, Clinch and Watts Bar Watersheds 28
3.3.3 Alternative C: Provision of New/Improved Recreational Opportunities within the Emory,
Clinch and Watts Bar Watersheds 29
3.4 Alternatives Considered but not Pursued 29
3.4.1 Habitat Restoration Outside the Emory, Clinch and Watts Bar Watersheds 29
3.4.2 Provision of New/Improved Recreation Opportunities Outside the Emory, Clinch and Watts
Bar Watersheds 29
CHAPTER 4 EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES 31
4.1 Evaluation of Alternative A: No Action 32
4.2 Evaluation of Alternative B: Habitat Restoration within the Emory, Clinch and Watts
Bar Watersheds 32
4.3 Evaluation of Alternative C: Provision of New/Improved Recreational Opportunities
within the Emory, Clinch and Watts Bar Watersheds 33
CHAPTER 5 PREFERRED RESTORATION ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY 34
5.1 Evaluation Based on Criteria 35
REFERENCES 38
APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS COMPARED
TO SCREENING CRITERIA/THRESHOLDS A-1
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF HABITAT EQUIVALENCY ANALYSIS INJURY
INPUTS AND RESULTS BY RIVER SECTION B-1
APPENDIX C: SWAN POND HABITAT EQUIVALENCY ANALYSIS C-1
APPENDIX D: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS D-1
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1-1 Location of TVA-KIF 2
Exhibit 1-2 Aerial Imagery of Ash Release Extent Immediately After the Spill 4
Exhibit 2-1 Map of Assessment Area 10
Exhibit 2-2 Map of Dredging and Excavation Extent 16
Exhibit 2-3 Ecological Losses by Sub-Section Resulting From Ash Smothering and
Dredging (DSAYS) 17
Exhibit 2-4 Map of Boat Ramp Locations at the Time of the TVA-KIF Spill 19
Exhibit 3-1 Swan Pond Embayment Restoration and Recreation Area Design 22
Exhibit 3-2 Map of Swan Pond Aquatic Restoration Areas Expected to Provide
NRDA-Related Ecological Services 24
Exhibit 3-3 Proposed Swan Pond New Recreational Fishing/Boating Access 25
Exhibit 5-1 Example Emory, Clinch and Watts Bar Watershed Restoration Options
and Trust Resources Potentially Benefited 35
LIST OF ACRONYMS
%EPT Percent Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera
assessment area Clinch, Emory, and Tennessee Rivers and Watts Bar Reservoir
BERA Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CoC Contaminant of Concern
cy
DOI
Cubic Yards
United States Department of the Interior
DSAY Discount Service Acre Year
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ERM
FWS
HEA
KG
KIF
mg
MOA
NEPA
Emory River Mile
United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
Habitat Equivalency Analysis
Kilograms
Kingston Fossil Plant
Milligram
Memorandum of Agreement
National Environmental Policy Act
NOAA
NRDA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Natural Resource Damage Assessment
PAH
RCDP
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
Restoration and Compensation Determination Plan
RP
Site
Responsible Party
TVA Kingston Fossil Plant
Swan Pond
TDEC
TRM
Trustees
TVA
Swan Pond Embayment Restoration and Recreation Park
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
Tennessee River Mile
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Tennessee
Valley Authority and United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Tennessee Valley Authority
ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) Kingston Fossil Plant (KIF) is located at the
confluence of the Emory and Clinch Rivers and upstream of the confluence of the Clinch
and Tennessee Rivers on Watts Bar Reservoir in Roane County, Tennessee. On Monday,
December 22, 2008, a coal ash spill occurred at TVA-KIF, releasing approximately 5.4
million cubic yards (cy) of coal ash to adjacent waterways and wetland/riparian habitats.
Coal ash smothered natural resources, and was then transported downstream via surface
water flow through the Emory River to the Clinch River and into Watts Bar Reservoir.
Following the spill, TVA completed dredging and excavation remedial actions to remove
coal ash. A by-product of burning coal to produce electricity, coal ash is primarily
composed of fine silica particles similar to sand, but also contains trace amounts of
arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, thallium, vanadium, zinc,
and other elements that occur naturally in the coal (TVA 2010). The release and
subsequent remedial activities injured natural resources that utilize aquatic habitat in the
area.
Under Federal law, Federal and state agencies are authorized to act as trustees of natural
resources on behalf of the public. In this role, trustees can assess and recover monetary
and other damages for injuries to natural resources, and use these recovered damages to
plan and implement actions that will compensate the public for the loss of services that
natural resources would have provided had the injury not occurred. The Trustees for the
TVA-KIF site are the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), and the TVA; TVA is also the
party responsible for the release.
Following the 2008 spill, the Trustees initiated natural resource damage assessment
(NRDA) activities. NRDA is a process that occurs in addition to the remedial process
conducted by regulatory agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Trustees are considering a settlement comprised of: 1) the implementation and long-
term monitoring of the Swan Pond Embayment Restoration and Recreation Park, an
approximately $10 million project paid for by TVA, and 2) a cash payment to the
Trustees of $750,000 for additional restoration projects. Together, these projects are
expected to compensate the public for natural resource injuries and associated ecological
and recreational losses. Settlement at this time is reasonable because: 1) the Trustees
believe that they have sufficient information to understand the type and magnitude of
injuries to trust natural resources affected by the TVA-KIF spill, and 2) a restoration
alternative (i.e., Swan Pond) is available that is a priority project for the Trustees and of
sufficient scope to provide a substantial portion of the required compensation.
ES-2
As part of this NRDA, the Trustees drafted this Restoration and Compensation
Determination Plan (RCDP) for public review. The purpose of an RCDP is to list a
reasonable number of possible alternatives that are expected to restore, replace, or acquire
the equivalent of lost resource services (43 C.F.R. §11.81 (a)). Therefore, this RCDP: 1)
summarizes natural resource injuries and associated losses in resource services due to the
TVA-KIF coal ash release, 2) outlines the expected ecological and recreational benefits
of the Swan Pond Embayment Restoration and Recreation Park (Swan Pond), and 3)
evaluates restoration alternatives that could be implemented with the $750,000 cash
payment to provide the additional resource benefits needed to fully compensate the public
for TVA-KIF spill-related losses.
NATURAL RESOURCE INJURY AND SERVICE LOSSES
For purposes of this NRDA, the assessment area includes portions of the Emory, Clinch,
and Tennessee Rivers and Watts Bar Reservoir downstream to the Watts Bar Dam.
Within that area, the Trustees identified three categories of potential natural resource
injury: contaminant-related injury, injury resulting from ash smothering and dredging,
and injury related to lost recreational use.
Contaminant-Related Injury
There is little evidence of substantial toxicity-derived service loss in the vicinity of the
Kingston facility. There were no exceedences of sediment toxicity guidelines, and
exceedences of adverse effects thresholds for fish and birds were extremely limited.
Ash Smother ing and Dredging Injury
Injury to the benthic invertebrate community resulting from ash smothering and
subsequent dredging activities was quantified using Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA).
A complete loss of ecological services was assumed for areas that were smothered and
dredged. Following dredging, and for areas that were not dredged but were impacted by
ash, service loss was estimated based on metrics of benthic community health and
projected recovery. Losses are approximately 1,224 discount service acre years (DSAYs).
Recreationa l Losses
Sections of the Emory River were closed as a result of the TVA-KIF spill, precluding
recreational fishing and boating in those areas. To estimate fishing losses, the Trustees
combined data on the number of potentially affected fishing trips, as reported in relevant
creel studies, with lost trip value reported in the peer-reviewed literature. This application
of benefit transfer resulted in approximately $167,000 in damages. Boating-related losses
were estimated based on the number of boat launches closed due to the release, and the
added cost of launching a boat at the nearest open downstream launch. Based on the
number of registered boats in the vicinity of the impacted area and available literature,
damages were approximately $29,000.
BENEFITS OF SWAN POND
As designed, Swan Pond is expected to provide both ecological and recreational benefits
similar to the ecological and recreational services lost as a result of the TVA-KIF spill.
ES-3
To quantify the potential ecological benefits of aquatic habitat restoration in Swan Pond,
the Trustees used both project-specific information (e.g., location, size, type) and generic
unit-based information (e.g., level of ecological benefit gained). Relevant restoration
activities include wetland creation, wetland enhancement, and riparian/shoreline
restoration. Using HEA, estimated benefits are approximately 1,040 DSAYs. TVA will
also conduct monitoring and adaptive management for 30 years to ensure the successful
long-term provision of natural resource services. This provides partial compensation for
ecological losses.
Swan Pond recreation restoration activities include the creation of a boat ramp and dock,
canoe/kayak access points, and fishing piers/areas. These installations will provide
recreational boating and fishing opportunities similar in kind to those lost due to the
release in addition to what was available prior to the ash spill, thereby providing
increased value to the boaters and anglers participating in these activities. This increased
value provides partial compensation for the lost value associated with diminished or
forgone fishing and boating trips.
ADDITIONAL RESTORATI ON ALTERNATIVES
To provide remaining ecological and recreational compensation for TVA-KIF spill-
related losses, the Trustees evaluated three restoration alternatives, including: A: No
Action, B: Habitat Restoration within the Emory, Clinch and Watts Bar watersheds, and
C: Restoration of Recreational Opportunities within the Emory, Clinch and Watts Bar
watersheds. Based on review of expected resource service benefits, environmental
consequences, and comparison of project characteristics to site-specific and regulatory
restoration criteria, the Trustees identified Alternatives B and C as appropriate and
sufficient to provide the necessary remaining compensation to the public. These
Alternatives will be funded by the $750,000 cash payment portion of the settlement.
As this RCDP is finalized, the Trustees will begin to identify and evaluate specific project
options based on the preferred alternatives. Each project will be evaluated against the
same restoration criteria described above, and, if needed, a further review of
environmental consequences will be conducted. The Trustees will continue to inform the
public of restoration project plans and progress.
1
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF RCDP
The purpose of a Restoration and Compensation Determination Plan (RCDP) is to inform
the public as to the type and scale of preferred restoration alternatives that are expected to
compensate for injuries to natural resources. In this case, coal ash, containing measurable
levels of hazardous substances such as arsenic, mercury, selenium, and zinc, has been
released into the Emory, Clinch, and Tennessee Rivers as a result of a dike failure at the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Kingston Fossil Plant (KIF) in Harriman, TN. Natural
resources (e.g., surface water, sediments, invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds,
and mammals) have been exposed to and adversely affected by the coal ash, resulting in a
loss in ecological and recreational services. The restoration plan must include a
reasonable number of alternative restoration actions and must identify a preferred
alternative (which may include one or more of the possible actions).
1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THIS CHAPTER
This chapter discusses the following:
An overview of the TVA-KIF ash spill,
Trusteeship and coordination with the Responsible Party (RP),
Compliance with other authorities,
The relationship between natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) and
remedial activities,
Public participation, and
An outline of the remainder of this RCDP.
1.3 OVERVIEW OF THE TVA KINGSTON ASH SPILL AND RELATED DREDGING 1
The TVA-KIF is located at the confluence of the Emory and Clinch Rivers and near the
confluence of the Clinch and Tennessee Rivers on Watts Bar Reservoir in Roane County,
Tennessee (Exhibit 1-1). KIF is one of TVA’s largest fossil fuel plants. Completed in
1955, today it generates 10 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity a year, enough to supply
the needs of about 670,000 homes in the Tennessee Valley. TVA-KIF has nine coal-fired
generating units, which consume approximately 14,000 tons of coal a day.
1 Sources: Arcadis (2012), EPA (2012), Jacobs (2010), TVA (2010).
3
Ash, a by-product of a coal-fired power plant, is stored in unlined containment areas at
TVA-KIF, including the former Dredge Cell that failed on December 22, 2008. That
dredge cell has been reinforced and capped since the spill. In addition, since the spill,
TVA has constructed a new, lined landfill for the receipt of coal combustion residuals.
While the released ash itself is primarily composed of fine silica particles similar to sand,
it also contains trace amounts of arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel,
selenium, thallium, vanadium, zinc, and other elements that occur naturally in the coal.
Approximately 5.4 million cy of wet fly ash and bottom ash were released during the ash
release event and flowed into the surrounding area waters, including the Emory River,
adjacent tributaries and sloughs and adjoining shorelines (Exhibit 1-2). Evaluation of the
spatial extent of ash deposits indicates that ash initially traveled upriver as far as Emory
River mile (ERM) 5.75, and eventually was transported into the Clinch River and as far
downriver as Tennessee River mile (TRM) 564 by high river flow events.
Dredging in the Emory River began on March 20, 2009 with hydraulic dredging
continuing until May 29, 2010, and mechanical dredging in pockets of ash upstream of
ERM 1.75 continuing until August 2010. The initial dredging pilot program was
performed until July 20, 2009. Phase I production dredging began in August 2009 and
focused on removing the greatest volume of ash in the quickest time frame to reduce the
potential for upstream flooding and downriver migration. A second period of “precision”
dredging (Phase II dredging) began in February 2010 to further minimize potential future
ash migration downriver. This dredging focused on returning the river channel to its
original (pre-release) depths while minimizing disturbance of legacy (i.e., historic)
sediment. Engineering controls (silt curtains) and operational controls (i.e., reduced cutter
head speed, reduced rate of advance, and reversed cutter head rotation) were implemented
to minimize suspending solids during the dredging operations.
Although dredging during the time-critical removal action removed approximately 3.5
million cy of released ash and sediment, no dredging was conducted downstream of ERM
1.75 due to the presence of legacy contaminants.
Approximately 532,000 cy of ash was estimated to remain in the river system, as
described in the USEPA-approved Kingston Ash Recovery Project On-Scene Coordinator
Report for the Time-Critical Removal Action at the TVA Kingston Fossil Fuel Plant
Release Site, Roane County, Tennessee (TVA 2011). Residual ash estimates were based
on interpretations of data from multiple sources, including pre-release and post-dredging
bathymetric data, dredging logs, visual surveys, and VibeCore™ data.
5
1.4 TRUSTEESHIP AND COORDINATION WITH THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY
This RCDP has been prepared by the TVA-KIF Trustees. Under Federal law, the Trustees
are authorized to act on behalf of the public to assess and recover natural resource
damages, and to plan and implement actions to restore, replace, or rehabilitate natural
resources injured or lost as a result of the release of a hazardous substance, or to acquire
the equivalent resources or the services they provide (42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq.;
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA);
43 C.F.R. §11). In addition, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 69-3-116, the Commissioner
may assess damages to the state resulting from any person’s pollution or violation,
failure, or neglect in complying with any rules, regulations, or standards of water quality
promulgated by the board or permits or orders issued pursuant to the Tennessee Water
Quality Control Act, T.C.A. §§ 69-3-101, et seq.
In this case, the State of Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
(TDEC) and the United States Department of the Interior (DOI) Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) are designated as trustees for natural resources actually or potentially affected by
the TVA-KIF ash spill under state and Federal authorities, including, but not limited to,
CERCLA; the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.); and the
CERCLA Damage Assessment Regulations (43 C.F.R. Part 11), as well as Subpart G of
the National Contingency Plan (40 C.F.R. §§ 300.600 et seq.); and Executive Order
12580 (52 Fed. Reg. 2923 (January 23, 1987)), as amended by Executive Order 12777
(56 Fed. Reg. 54757 (October 19, 1991).
As encouraged under 43 C.F.R. Part 11, TDEC and FWS invited TVA, as the party
responsible for the coal ash spill, to participate in the development and implementation of
assessment and restoration activities. TDEC and FWS noted that TVA may also be a co-
trustee for some potentially injured resources and that it was appropriate, under 40 C.F.R.
§ 300.600(a)(4), for TVA to participate as a trustee in the NRDA process. Therefore, on
January 12, 2011, TVA signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with TDEC and
FWS to cooperatively resolve natural resource damages resulting from the TVA-KIF ash
spill (TDEC et al. 2011). To-date, TVA’s active involvement in the damage assessment
and restoration planning process includes the following:
Providing funding and assistance for assessment activities,
Providing data and developing a database of contaminant concentration data,
Participating in the development of injury assessments of ecological and
recreational services, and
Assisting with the identification and benefits assessment of restoration
alternatives.
In addition, the MOA explicitly states:
“the parties agree to…develop a Natural Resource Restoration Plan to be funded
by TVA for the restoration, replacement, and/or acquisition of the equivalent
resources for those natural resources and/or services provided by those
resources, that have been or may be injured, destroyed, or lost as a result of the
6
events of December 22, 2008 at the Kingston Fossil Plant.” (Trustees 2010, p. 4
Section 3).
1.5 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER AUTHORITIES
Restoration alternatives described in this document will be conducted in compliance with
all applicable Federal, state, and local regulations.
The Trustees prepared this RCDP to fulfill requirements under CERCLA. Authority to
seek natural resource damages is also provided by the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act of 1972, as amended, commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act.
Other Federal natural resource and environmental laws and regulations considered during
the development of this RCDP include but are not limited to: the Endangered Species Act
of 1973; the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; the National Historic Preservation Act; the
Archaeological Resources Protection Act; the Wilderness Act of 1964; the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934; the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962; the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Mitigation Policy of 1981; Executive Order 11990 on Wetlands; Executive
Order 11988 on Floodplains; Executive Order 12580 on Superfund; and the Information
Quality Act of 2001.
The major state environmental statutes and programs considered during the development
of this RCDP include: the Water Quality Control Act and the Tennessee Solid Waste
Disposal Act.
1.6 NRDA RELATIONSHIP TO REMEDIAL ACTIVIT IES
NRDA is a process that occurs in addition to the remedial process conducted by
regulatory agencies like the EPA. These two processes have different goals. Remedial
action objectives are risk-based, and are developed to protect human health and the
environment from further unacceptable harm. Remedies are selected based on evaluation
criteria that are used to compare remedial alternatives and may result in contamination
remaining in the environment above levels that existed prior to their release.
Alternatively, the goal of NRDA is the restoration of resources to their baseline condition
(i.e., what their condition would be absent the release). Losses resulting from natural
resource exposure to released materials and/or hazardous substances are estimated over
time until the resource is restored (i.e., interim losses). These losses can therefore extend
beyond the date of remedy completion due to material and/or contaminants being left in
the environment at levels injurious to natural resources.
There are components of NRDA and remedy however that overlap. For example,
remedial decisions can include consideration of NRDA restoration objectives. Work to
remedy a site may partially or completely restore injured natural resources, and NRDA
estimates take this into account. In addition, remedial actions may cause “collateral
injury” to habitat, and quantification and restoration of this remedy-induced injury is also
evaluated within NRDA.
For the TVA-KIF NRDA, the Trustees have interacted with EPA and TVA as EPA and
TVA evaluated the degree and extent of contamination; conducted human health and
ecological risk assessments; and evaluated, selected, designed, and implemented
7
remedies. This coordination provided an understanding of the remedial process and
helped the Trustees evaluate how each remedial decision affected estimates of natural
resource damages. The Trustees also worked with EPA and TVA to integrate
remediation and restoration and coordinate remedial activities with some of the Trustees’
restoration priorities.
1.7 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public participation and review is an integral part of the restoration planning process, and
is specifically mentioned in the DOI NRDA regulations (e.g., 43 C.F.R. §11.81(d)(2)).
Therefore, the Trustees made the draft RCDP available for review for a period of 30 days
in accordance with 43 C.F.R. § 11.32(c)(1).
A copy of the final RCDP is available online at the following websites:
http://www.tva.com/kingston/
www.tn.gov/environment/kingston
Interested parties can obtain a hard copy of this RCDP from the Trustees by submitting a
written request to the following address:
Debbie Duren
Natural Resource Trustee Program Manager
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
761 Emory Valley Road
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
Debbie.Duren@tn.gov
The Trustees addressed public comments and documented responses to those comments
in Appendix D.
As the restoration process progresses, the Trustees may amend this RCDP, and will
subsequently notify the public. These amendments, if any, will be made available on the
website mentioned above. In the event of a significant change to the RCDP, the Trustees
will provide the public with an opportunity to comment on that particular amendment.
8
1.8 ORGANIZATION OF THIS RCDP
The remainder of this document is organized as follows:
Chapter 2 describes the natural resources and contaminants of concern (CoCs)
and the determination and quantification of natural resource injuries and
associated service losses.
Chapter 3 provides descriptions of the proposed restoration alternatives and how
these projects are evaluated to compensate for the injuries described in Chapter 2.
Chapter 4 presents the Trustees’ restoration evaluation criteria and the selection
of their preferred alternatives.
Chapter 5 provides a summary of the preferred restoration alternatives.
9
CHAPTER 2 | SUMMARY OF NATURAL RESOURCE INJURIES AND
SERVICE LOSSES
This Chapter provides an overview of the natural resource injuries and corresponding
service losses incurred by Trust resources as a result of the TVA-KIF ash spill. This
includes a description of the assessment area, the CoCs, the ecological and recreational
services provided by Trust resources within the assessment area, and a summary of injury
determination and quantification.
2.1 ASSESSMENT AREA
The TVA-KIF ash spill affected a broad area of complex hydrology and diverse habitats.
The Emory River flows unregulated from its headwaters in the Catoosa Wildlife
Management Area to its confluence with the Clinch River. Near its headwaters, the
Emory River is joined by the larger Obed River, though it maintains its name as it
continues downstream from its confluence with the Obed to its confluence with the
Clinch River. The Clinch River flows approximately 300 miles from Virginia to its
confluence with the Tennessee River a few miles downstream from the KIF. The
Tennessee River flows from the confluence of the French Broad and Holston Rivers in
Knoxville Tennessee to where it meets the Ohio River along the Kentucky and Illinois
border. These rivers all flow into the Watts Bar Reservoir, which was formed when TVA
constructed Watts Bar Dam in 1942 at TRM 529.9. These waterways are adjacent to
upland, wetland, and riparian habitat included in the assessment area. The assessment
area is based on the geographic scope within which trust resources have been directly or
indirectly affected by the TVA-KIF ash spill. For purposes of this NRDA, these areas
include the aquatic (i.e., riverine) habitat in:
The Emory River from mile 6.0 downstream to mile 0.0;
The Clinch River from mile 5.0 downstream to its confluence with the Tennessee
River;
The Tennessee River from mile 568.7 downstream to Watts Bar Dam; and
The wetland and riparian areas located adjacent to the West Embayment, North
Embayment, Swan Pond, and East Embayment.
Exhibit 2-1 provides an overview of the assessment area as described above.
11
2.2 NATURAL RESOURCES
According to the DOI NRDA regulations, natural resources are defined as:
Land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water, drinking water supplies, and
other such resources belonging to, managed by, held in trust by, appertaining to, or
otherwise controlled by the United States (including the resources of the fishery
conservation zone established by the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act of 1976), any State or local government, any foreign government,
any Indian tribe, or, if such resources are subject to a trust restriction on alienation,
any member of an Indian tribe (42 USC § 9601 (16)). These natural resources have
been categorized into the following five groups: Surface water resources, ground
water resources, air resources, geologic resources, and biological resources (43
CFR § 11.14 (z)).
As described above, the assessment area includes riverine, wetland, and riparian areas
within the Emory, Clinch, and Tennessee Rivers and Watts Bar Reservoir. Natural
resources of concern include all Trust resources that comprise or utilize these habitats
within the assessment area, including, but not limited to, surface water, sediment, soil,
plants, insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. For example:
Mussels. Aquatic habitat in the vicinity of the Kingston facility supports six
common mussel species including Elliptio crassidens (Elephant Ear), Leptodea
fragilis (Fragile Papershell), Obliquaria reflexa (Threehorn Wartyback),
Potamilus alatus (Pink Heelsplitter), Pyganodon grandis (Giant Floater), and
Quadrula pustulosa (Pimpleback) (McKinney 2014).
Fish. TVA sampling efforts in 2009 indicated that 43 fish species are present in
the area, with gizzard shad, bluegill sunfish, freshwater drum, largemouth bass,
and redear sunfish being the predominant species. Federally-listed threatened
snail darter and spotfin chub are known to occur in tributaries to the Watts Bar
Reservoir and may occur in the reservoir itself, though they have not been
reported in the vicinity of Kingston (Arcadis 2012).
Reptiles and Amphibians. Riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitats in the Watts
Bar Reservoir watershed generally support amphibian and reptile species.
Amphibian species include the bullfrog, green frog, Eastern narrow-mouth toad,
and Fowler’s toad. Reptiles such as the common snapping turtle and painted
turtle are also present (Arcadis 2012).
Birds. Riparian and wetland habitats along the Watts Bar Reservoir support a
range of bird species, including both residential and migratory populations.
Representative species include killdeer, semipalmated plover, mallard, American
black duck, hooded merganser, resident Canada goose, wood duck, and the
Federally-listed bald eagle. Avian species specifically documented as nesting
near TVA-KIF include piscivorous (i.e., fish-eating) birds such as the double-
crested cormorant, various heron species, and osprey (Arcadis 2012).
Mammals. Mammalian species are found in riparian and wetland habitat in the
area, including white-tailed deer, raccoon, eastern mole, eastern cottontail rabbit,
12
groundhog, gray fox, and the coyote. The Watts Bar Reservoir watershed is also
home to the Federally-listed endangered gray bat, but there are no known
maternity colonies or hibernacula in the vicinity of Kingston (Arcadis 2012).
2.3 NATURAL RESOURCE INJURY
Available data indicate that resources within the assessment area have been injured due to
smothering by coal ash and dredging activities, and may be injured in the future due to
long-term exposure to bioaccumulative contaminants.2 That is, exposure to coal ash,
including bioaccumulative CoCs, and corresponding dredging has resulted (or may result)
in a measurable adverse change in the quality and viability of natural resources. As a
result, the public has experienced and continues to experience a reduction (i.e., an interim
loss) of both ecological and human use services provided by these natural resources
relative to the services that the resources would have provided had the spill not occurred
(i.e., their baseline condition). Through the proposed restoration activities described later
in this RCDP, the Trustees seek to ensure that natural resource services are provided, in
the future, of a type and scale sufficient to compensate for this interim loss.
Natural resources provide a variety of services. Services are, “the physical and biological
functions performed by the resource, including the human uses of those functions, [that
result from the resource’s] physical, chemical, or biological quality” (43 CFR § 11.14
(nn)). For example, ecological services provided by streams include the provision of
habitat for fish (including stocked and migratory species), amphibians, and other aquatic
organisms; and foraging opportunities for animals that eat fish, macroinvertebrates, and
aquatic plants. Similarly, riparian and wetland soils provide services by supporting
healthy vegetation and diverse plant communities that in turn provide animals with
foraging opportunities, nesting or denning areas, and protective cover. Examples of
human use services provided by natural resources include opportunities for fishing,
boating, and wildlife viewing and appreciation.
There are three potential categories of natural resource injury related to the release:
contaminant-related injury, injury from dredging and smothering, and injury related to
recreational use.
2.3.1 CONTAMINANT-RELATED INJURY
Toxic constituents of coal ash vary depending on the source of coal burned in the power
plant. CoCs for this site include arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury,
nickel, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), selenium, vanadium, and zinc.
Building on information presented in the Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment (BERA;
Arcadis 2012) for this site, and critical review of the corresponding toxicological profiles
(Industrial Economics, Inc 2012) and other literature, the Trustees developed a suite of
screening criteria against which to compare observed CoC concentrations. The criteria
2 Site-specific studies to-date report CoCs in ash at levels not expected to cause substantial injury. Bioaccumulative CoCs
include mercury, selenium, and zinc.
13
represent CoC concentrations above which adverse effects on endpoints such as
reproduction, growth, and/or survival may occur (Appendix A). The Trustees concluded
that for all CoCs, the majority of site-specific tissue and sediment concentrations
measured to-date were below corresponding thresholds.
Observed contaminant concentrations in the vicinity of TVA-KIF were compared to the
screening criteria described above to determine whether an injury (as defined by the DOI
NRDA regulations at 43 CFR Part 11) has occurred, or is likely to have occurred. The
Trustees assume that site-specific contaminant concentrations below their corresponding
screening criteria do not cause injury to natural resources, whereas any observed
concentration in exceedence of a criterion may cause a loss in ecological service.
As indicated by the exhibits in Appendix A, there is little evidence of substantial toxicity-
derived service loss in the vicinity of the Kingston facility. There were no exceedences of
sediment toxicity criteria, while exceedences in fish and birds were limited to arsenic and
zinc, respectively. In addition, evidence that these exceedences were caused by the coal
ash spill is limited. For example, zinc concentrations in reference areas (i.e., upstream of
the spill) are comparable to those measured within the assessment area. The Trustees
also note that arsenic results in Clinch River fish from one lab exceeded the screening
criterion; however, given the existence of samples from other labs that are well below the
screening criterion, evidence of service loss is not compelling.
Although site-specific toxicity and community structure field studies currently available
on mussels, fish, reptiles, and birds did not identify adverse effects related to the TVA-
KIF ash spill, it is possible that some service loss to trust resources may have occurred or
may occur in the future. For example, mercury, selenium, and zinc are known to
biomagnify and may cause injury in the future, potentially affecting sensitive biological
endpoints/life stages (e.g., larval fish).
Given this information, the Trustees’ preferred restoration alternatives (Chapters 4 and 5)
are expected to provide sufficient ecological benefits to assessment area resources to
account for any of these potential injuries.
2.3.2 ASH-SMOTHERING AND DREDGING
Natural resources experienced a loss in ecological function as a result of both ash
smothering and dredging. Smothering occurred when the amount of ash in the waterway
was sufficient to eliminate the benthic community. Dredging in this case is the physical
removal of ash and ash-sediment mixtures from the bed and banks of aquatic habitat
within the assessment area.
To quantify the ecological losses incurred as a result of smothering and dredging, the
Trustees used habitat equivalency analysis (HEA), a method commonly applied in NRDA
that accounts for the spatial and temporal scope of injuries in units of discount service
acre-years of habitat (See Text Box “What is Habitat Equivalency Analysis?” on page
15).
Because of its large spatial extent, the Trustees divided the assessment area into sub-
sections based on environmental parameters (e.g., hydrology, topography). The spatial
14
extent of dredging (Exhibit 2-2) and dredge completion date were identified for each sub-
section.3
For purposes of this analysis, dredged areas are analogous to areas smothered by ash. The
smothering of the river bottom and subsequent removal of substrate that occurred during
dredging activities resulted in substantial disturbance to the benthic invertebrate
community, which is a reasonable indicator of overall aquatic community health. As a
result, the Trustees assumed a 100 percent service loss prior to dredge-completion. For
non-dredged areas and post-dredge recovery within dredged areas, the Trustees chose the
benthic invertebrate community as a representative resource for injury quantification. The
benthic invertebrate community encompasses the invertebrate organisms that live on
(epifauna) or within (infauna) sediment substrate. Among other functions, benthic
invertebrate communities are integral to maintaining the structure and function of the
aquatic ecosystem (e.g., the base of the aquatic food web), and play an important role in
ecosystem energy and nutrient cycling.
Researchers repeatedly surveyed the benthic community from 2009 through 2013 at
multiple locations within the assessment area, as well as reference locations (i.e.,
upstream of the spill area) on the Emory, Clinch, and Tennessee Rivers. These
researchers then counted and identified the benthic invertebrates found within each
sample collected during the surveys. Using these data, the Trustees calculated the
number of individuals (density), number of different taxonomic groups (richness), and the
percent of pollution sensitive individuals (%EPT) first within each sample, then across
samples in each sub-section by year.4 Taken together, these three metrics inform the
health of the benthic community within each sub-section.
To determine service loss by assessment area sub-section on a yearly basis, reductions in
density, richness, and %EPT, as compared to reference locations were quantified.
Review of site-specific data indicated that all dredged sub-sections recovered within two
years following dredging. Therefore, if site-specific benthic community metrics indicated
losses continuing through 2013, future losses were assumed to decline to zero over two
years (i.e., full recovery is predicted in 2015).5 Details are provided in Appendix B.
3 If site-specific data were not available for a sub-section for a given year, ecological losses and recovery were based on the
site-specific data in either previous and subsequent years or at adjacent sub-sections. If both data sources were available,
previous and subsequent years took precedence over adjacent sub-sections.
4 %EPT refers to the percentage of invertebrate samples in the three invertebrate orders considered to be especially sensitive
to pollution: Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera.
5 Benthic community data were not available for all years and assessment area sections. The Trustees applied calculated
benthic service loss percentages from neighboring assessment area sections with available data to extrapolate service loss
in areas with no data.
15
What is Habitat Equivalency Analysis?
The basic premise of habitat equivalency analysis is that the public can be compensated
for past and expected future losses in ecological services through the provision of
additional ecological services in the future. Compensable losses are “interim” losses – the
loss in ecological services incurred from the time the resource is injured* until the
services provided by the injured resource return to their baseline level. Baseline is defined
as the level of services that would have been provided in the absence of the pollution.
Recovery to baseline for each resource service may be achieved through remediation,
restoration, and/or natural recovery. Compensatory restoration actions for these interim
lost services are in addition to those actions required to restore injured resources to
baseline conditions (i.e., primary restoration).
Within equivalency analyses, both service losses and compensatory service gains are
typically measured in terms of “unit-time” (e.g., acre-years), which incorporates both the
geographic and temporal nature of the analysis. Each acre-year represents the existence of
one acre of a particular habitat for one year. The concept of an acre-year allows the
analysis to consider not only the number of acres lost as a result of the adverse effects,
but also the fact that these acres have not provided the baseline level of services each
year for some period of time. For example, if an acre of aquatic habitat is injured (e.g.,
provides zero percent of baseline services due to ash smothering) in 2009, and remains
injured until 2015, losses are accrued for the acre of injured habitat for each of the six
years of loss (e.g., six acre-years, not accounting for the present value of these services).
Use of the acre-year metric also allows losses to be scaled with gains in ecological
services from restoration (i.e., the services provided by an acre of restored habitat over a
period of time). For example, if one acre of fully-functional riparian habitat is expected to
provide 100 percent of baseline services each year for the next ten years, it will provide
ten acre-years** (again, not accounting for the present value of these services).
Equivalency between losses and gains is then established by determining the present
value of each (i.e., compounding past losses and discounting future losses and gains).
Losses and gains are expressed in terms of units of the diminished resource itself (e.g.,
discount service acre-years; DSAYs) rather than economic value (Unsworth and Bishop
1994). Dollar damages are calculated as the cost of compensatory restoration projects.
* Damages are calculated from the start of injury or 1981, whichever is later, in accordance with
the promulgation of CERCLA.
** Assuming the habitat selected for restoration previously provided no ecological services (i.e.,
the gain in services is 100 percent).
17
The percentage service loss per year (2009-2015) for each assessment area sub-section
was multiplied by the acreage of that sub-section, and the present value (in 2013) of these
lost acres is calculated using a discount rate of three percent.6 Results indicate a loss of
1,091 DSAYs in dredged areas and 133 DSAYs in additional ash-impacted areas (Exhibit
2-3).
EXHIBIT 2-3 ECOLOGICAL LOSSES BY SUB-SECTION RESULTING FROM ASH SMOTHERING AND
DREDGING (DSAYS)
SUB-SECTION
PRESENT VALUE LOSSES (DSAYS)
DREDGED AREA ADDITIONAL
IMPACTED AREA TOTAL
Segment 1 59 0 59
Segment 2/3 17 0 17
Segment 4 19 4 22
Segment 5 58 4 62
Above Segment 5 84 0 84
Above-Above Segment 5 66 24 89
Below Segment 4, West NA 45 45
Below Segment 4, East NA 0 0
Below Segment 4, Embayment NA 0 0
North of Segment 4 NA 4 4
Intake Channel NA 16 16
East of Segment 1 NA 0 0
North of Segment 5 NA 36 36
Dike 2 189 NA 189
Church Slough 5 NA 5
East Embayment-South End 57 NA 57
East Embayment-North End 25 NA 25
Middle Embayment 289 NA 289
North Embayment-South End 135 NA 135
North Embayment-North End 89 NA 89
Total 1,091 133 1,224
Notes:
1. Additional Impacted Areas are areas within the study area that were not dredged, but
that sustained some loss based on benthic community data.
2. Totals may not sum due to rounding.
3. NA in the Dredged Area column indicates that within a sub-section, no dredging
occurred. NA in the Additional Impacted Areas column indicates that the entire area of a
sub-section was dredged. 0 indicates that the calculated present value losses were zero.
6 Because the spill occurred at the very end of 2008, we begin annual calculation of damages in 2009.
18
2.3.3 RECREATIONAL LOSSES
The release of coal ash from TVA’s KIF impaired recreational services within the
assessment area. In particular, the closure of a section of the Emory River and Swan Pond
during dredging impacted fishing and boating activities. Fishing and boating losses were
quantified using site-specific estimates of fishing and boating effort in conjunction with
valuation information from the economics literature in a standard application of the
benefit transfer methodology. Total present value losses associated with lost recreational
opportunities are approximately $200,000.
Fish ing
The Trustees estimated losses associated with compromised fishing opportunities for the
Emory River beginning in 2009 due the closure of the Emory River and Swan Pond and
continuing through the projected re-opening of each area and/or expected cessation of
major remedial/restoration activities: Emory River in 2010, West of Dike #2 in 2012, and
East of Dike #2 in 2015. Based on available creel surveys conducted by TVA in the
vicinity of the assessment area, the Trustees assumed approximately 2.1 trips per acre at a
value of $32.44 per trip were completely lost during that timeframe (i.e., there were no
substitutes; Jakus et al. 1997). Using a three percent discount rate, present value
recreational fishing losses were estimated to be approximately $167,000.
Boating
Boating-related losses were estimated based on the number of boat launches closed due to
the release, and the added cost of launching a boat at the nearest open downstream launch
(Exhibit 2-4). That is, the Trustees assumed individual trips were not lost but occurred at
a different location at an added cost to the angler. Based on the number of registered
boats in the vicinity of the impacted area and available literature, approximately 1,650
trips per year (2009-2010) were adversely impacted (TVA 2009). The additional cost per
trip was estimated to be approximately $8.507, which, using a three percent discount rate,
results in approximately $29,000 in present value damages.
7 Additional cost per trip is calculated as the added out-of-pocket cost for operating a car ($0.33 per mile * average distance
from closed boat ramps to next closest downstream of closure area), plus the opportunity cost of having to drive farther
(1/3 wage rate).
20
CHAPTER 3 | RESTORATION OBJECTIVES AND PROPOSED
RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES
To compensate the public for injuries (i.e., service losses) to natural resources resulting
from the TVA-KIF spill, the Trustees are required to develop alternatives for the
“restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, and/or acquisition of the equivalent of the
natural resources and the services those resources provide” (42 C.F.R. §11.82 (a)). At this
time, the Trustees are considering a settlement comprised of:
1. The complete implementation and subsequent monitoring of the Swan Pond
Embayment Restoration and Recreation Park (Swan Pond) developed by TVA,
which is expected to provide approximately 1,040 DSAYs and new recreational
fishing and boating opportunities for area anglers.
2. A cash payment of $750,000 to fund additional restoration projects that will
compensate for the remaining 184 DSAYs and additional recreational losses .
Together, these projects are expected to compensate the public for natural resource
injuries and associated ecological and recreational losses. Settlement at this time is
reasonable because: 1) the Trustees believe that they have sufficient information to
understand the type and magnitude of injuries to trust natural resources affected by the
TVA-KIF spill, and 2) a restoration alternative (i.e., Swan Pond) is available that is a
priority project for the Trustees and of sufficient scope to provide a substantial portion of
the required compensation.
This chapter summarizes the natural resource service benefits expected from completion
of Swan Pond, and describes the Trustees’ proposed plans and priorities with respect to
identification and implementation of additional restoration projects that together will
compensate for the natural resource injuries and service reductions described in Chapter
2.
3.1 SWAN POND EMBAYMENT RESTORATION AND RECREATION PARK
Following the release of ash from the KIF in 2008, TVA acquired the majority of
property either directly affected by the TVA-KIF ash spill or adjacent to areas smothered
in ash. Subsequently, TVA designed and is currently engaged in habitat preservation and
enhancement and creation of new recreational opportunities as described in the following
restoration plans:
Kingston Ash Recovery Project Non-Time Critical Removal Action Swan Pond
Embayment Ecosystem Restoration Technical Specifications – 100% Design
Kingston Ash Recovery Project Non-Time Critical Removal Action Swan Pond
Recreation Area: Phase I Lakeshore Area Technical Specifications – 100%
Design plans (together, Swan Pond Plans; Exhibit 3-1).
21
Once completed, Swan Pond will provide both natural resource services similar to the
assessment area’s baseline services (i.e., the natural resource services the area provided
prior to the spill) and resource services similar to those lost due to the TVA-KIF spill.
The project, funded by TVA, costs approximately $10 million. The following sections
describe in further detail Swan Pond’s ecological and recreation restoration activities and
their related benefits.
3.1.1 ECOLOGICAL SERVICES: HABITAT RESTORATION, CREATION AND
PRESERVATION
The Swan Pond Plans include a suite of ecological restoration activities that benefit a
variety of habitat types. These include, but are not limited to, re-vegetation of shoreline
habitats, installation of water control structures, removal of invasive species, creation of
riparian buffers and wetland preservation (TVA and Jacobs Engineering 2011).
Ecological components of the master plan fall into one of five categories: 1) restoration of
habitat to its pre-spill (i.e., baseline condition), 2) enhancement of upland habitat, 3)
preservation of existing wetland habitat, 4) enhancement of aquatic habitat, or 5) creation
of new aquatic habitat.
To assess the ecological benefits provided by Swan Pond as compensation for natural
resource services lost due to the TVA-KIF spill, the Trustees focused on components that
provide ecological services of the same type and quality as those lost and that are above
and beyond the baseline level of services. These components include enhancement of
existing and creation of new aquatic habitat. Aquatic habitat, including in-stream,
shoreline/riparian, and wetland habitat, provides relevant ecological services. For
example, wetland and shoreline/riparian areas provide habitat for breeding and migratory
fish and birds, improve water quality by filtering sediments and other pollutants from the
water column, reduce erosion, and export detritus (energy source for the aquatic food
web). Further, these activities help increase the production of forage fish, which provide
prey for piscivorous fish, birds, reptiles, and mammals. Habitat creation and enhancement
will increase the quality and quantity of these types of ecological services in Swan Pond.
For example, areas dominated by invasive species have limited habitat value to native
species due to invasive-related changes in characteristics such as species composition,
nutrient cycling, and hydrology, which correspondingly alter the overall structure and
function of the habitat. Removal of invasive species and re-establishment of the native
vegetative community would reverse that degradation.
23
The aquatic habitat creation and enhancement activities in Swan Pond will occur on
approximately 90 acres of inter-connected habitat (Exhibit 3-2). Using methods
commonly applied in NRDA (e.g., HEA) and information from the literature (e.g., Harper
and Peckarsky 2005, Muotka et al. 2001, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) 1999), the Trustees applied the following information and
assumptions to quantify the expected natural resource benefits resulting from Swan Pond
aquatic habitat restoration:
Construction began in 2013 and is expected to end in 2014 (i.e., ecological
service gains will begin to accrue in 2015).
90 acres of aquatic habitat will be created or enhanced.
Pre-restoration ecological services are assumed to be zero percent due to ash
smothering and corresponding dredging activities.
There is no additional loss in these areas due to restoration-related construction
activities because the baseline level of ecological services is zero percent.
Maximum service levels of the restored habitat are estimated to be 85 percent
because anthropogenically-restored habitats generally do not reach productivity
levels associated with natural, fully functional habitats.
Ecological benefits accrue for 30 years.
The annual discount rate of ecological services through time is three percent,
consistent with economic theory and typical NRDA practice (NOAA 1999,
Freeman 1993).
Based on these assumptions, creation and enhancement of aquatic habitat in Swan Pond is
expected to provide approximately 1,040 DSAYs, which will partially compensate the
public for lost ecological services. Appendix C presents details on the inputs used to
quantify the benefits of the proposed activities and the corresponding results.
3.1.2 RECREATION SERVICES: BOAT RAMP, F ISHING AND CANOE/KAYAK ACCESS
Swan Pond recreation activities include the creation of a boat ramp and dock, four
canoe/kayak access points and five fishing piers/areas (Exhibit 3-3). These installations
will provide recreational boating and fishing opportunities similar in kind to those lost
due to the release in addition to what was available prior to the ash spill, thereby
providing increased value to the boaters and anglers participating in these activities. This
increased value provides partial compensation for the lost value associated with fishing
and boating trips diminished or forgone as a result of the TVA-KIF spill.
24
EXHIBIT 3-2 MAP OF SWAN POND AQUATIC RESTORATION AREAS EXPECTED TO PROVIDE NRDA-RELATED ECOLOGICAL SERVICES
26
3.1.3 MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT OF ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION
AT SWAN POND
Following the completion of Swan Pond, monitoring and adaptive management are
required to ensure that restoration actions are successful in the long-term. TDEC and
FWS require all ecological and recreational fishing/boating activities proposed by TVA
in the Swan Pond Restoration master plan are completed, and that sufficient monitoring
and management occur (either directly or funded by TVA) for a minimum of 30 years.
A critical component of any restoration project, monitoring provides a mechanism to
determine whether the project has met its goals or performance criteria and helps to guide
adaptive management actions and site maintenance. The Trustees, including TVA, are
designing a monitoring plan that is tailored to the specific characteristics of the Swan
Pond restoration. The plan includes performance criteria: the measures that will assess the
progress of the restoration sites toward project goals. In this case, performance criteria
include both the performance anticipated as well as the time that is predicted for the
restored habitat to reach intermediate milestones and overall project goals. Because
planting success criteria are expected to be met in year 15, intermediate milestones are
necessary to determine whether a project is on an acceptable trajectory toward full
recovery.
To ensure the success of a restoration site it is important to have an adaptive management
strategy that will allow Trustees to determine what attributes are not on target for project
success and what actions, including overall course corrections due to site conditions, need
to be taken to achieve project success. Examples of adaptive management actions include
replanting species, changing plant species or densities, re-grading banks, adjusting
hydrological connections, and/or installing irrigation. Monitoring parameters, described
below, are designed to collect data that will inform whether adaptive management may be
needed. If an attribute is not performing as expected, TVA will critically evaluate the
issue and if needed will develop an adaptive management plan that will be reviewed and
approved by all the Trustees prior to implementation.
The specific parameters being monitored reflect both the physical structure and biological
components of the restored habitat. More importantly, the selected parameters and plan
assess how the system and its ecological processes are functioning. In this case, the
Trustees are focusing on the plant community as a proxy for overall ecosystem health.
For example, monitoring will assess plant survival, percent cover, and percent native
species.
As noted above, the ecological services provided by restored habitats take time to fully
develop. Typically, sites develop more rapidly at first as plants become established and
animal species return, and then have a slower recovery rate in later years. To account for
this temporal variability, monitoring will be completed every year for the first few years
after project implementation, and then will be spaced more infrequently in subsequent
years: Therefore monitoring and reporting will be performed in years 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 15,
20, 25, and 30. All monitoring will occur during the early part of the growing season,
between mid-April and late May, and monitoring reports will be submitted to the Trustees
each monitoring year.
27
If upon review of the monitoring reports it is shown that success criteria are not on track
to be met at the anticipated date, then changes will be made to the plan. These changes
may include selection of different species to be planted, alternative settings at the weirs to
control water levels, new drainage patterns that affect the wetlands, or changes in
methods used to manage invasive species. Should such changes be necessary, the revised
plan will be submitted to Trustee agencies for review and approval prior to changes being
implemented.
3.2 $750,000 CASH PAYMENT FOR RESTORATION
In addition to implementation of the Swan Pond master plan, TVA’s NRDA settlement
includes a $750,000 cash payment for additional restoration outside the Swan Pond area.
Restoration activities could include projects such as conservation easements, land
acquisition, stream-bank restoration or the creation of new recreational fishing/boating
access. The broader geographic scope of these projects would enable the Trustees to
conduct restoration in other areas that support relevant aquatic habitat and associated
natural resources, and would provide the remaining ecological benefits required for
compensation, and/or additional fishing, boating, and other recreational opportunities for
the public. Identification and selection of specific projects will also include opportunities
for public outreach and comment as required under the DOI NRDA regulations (43 CFR
11.81).
3.3 PROPOSED RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES
As described above, in addition to the implementation of Swan Pond, TVA provided a
cash payment of $750,000 to the Trustees to implement additional restoration projects.
The remainder of this chapter describes restoration alternatives the Trustees deemed
potentially appropriate for funding, as well as several alternatives the Trustees evaluated
but eliminated from further consideration. Further details of the Trustees’ evaluation of
the restoration alternatives are presented below and in Chapter 4.
3.3.1 ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION / NATURAL RECOVERY
The No Action/Natural Recovery alternative includes any continuing or further remedial
activities and associated adaptive management, but would not include additional activities
to restore injured natural resources or compensate for the interim loss of natural resource
services.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Trustees to consider no
action/natural recovery as an option for restoring injured natural resources and services.
The No Action alternative thus serves as a point of comparison to determine the context,
duration, and magnitude of any environmental effects that might result from the
implementation of other restoration actions.
28
3.3.2 ALTERNATIVE B: HABITAT RESTORATION WITHIN THE EMORY, CLINCH AND
WATTS BAR WATERSHEDS
Habitat restoration within the Emory, Clinch and Watts Bar watersheds is expected to
provide natural resource services similar to the services that the injured habitat would
have provided but for the TVA-KIF spill. This alternative would increase habitat quality
and quantity, promote habitat connectivity, and benefit Trust natural resources
specifically within the injured ecosystem.
There are a variety of habitat restoration options within the Emory, Clinch and Watts Bar
watersheds that would provide relevant ecological services. Trust resources potentially
benefited by these habitat restoration alternatives include surface water, sediments,
aquatic invertebrates, fish, birds, turtles, amphibians and mammals. For example:
Habitat Creation. This involves converting one type of habitat to another.
Typically this is undertaken when:
1. A disturbed/non-habitat area can be converted to habitat. Example: An
abandoned parking lot could be cleared, debris removed, graded, and
planted as native grassland (e.g., to support migratory songbirds).
2. An area is restored to a historic habitat type. Example: A wetland,
previously filled, could be excavated, re-graded, hydrologically
reconnected to surface water or other wetland, and replanted with native
wetland vegetation (e.g., to support waterfowl, amphibians, etc.).
3. There is a specific need for a particular habitat type in an area. Example:
An endangered plant requires vernal pools for survival. Protection and
restoration for that species is a resource management priority. In the area
of concern, vernal pools are sufficiently rare such that conversion of
other habitat (e.g., upland) to vernal pool is appropriate.
Habitat Restoration. This includes improvement of degraded habitat, ideally
returning the area to conditions that better approximate “natural” conditions.
Example: The hydrologic connectivity of an existing wetland is restricted by an
undersized culvert. The existing culvert could be replaced with a larger, more
wildlife-friendly culvert. Other examples of habitat restoration activities include
invasive species removal, planting of native species, stocking native bivalves,
dam removal, or the addition of soil amendments to promote natural vegetation
growth.
Habitat Enhancement. This involves increasing one or more of the services
provided by an existing habitat. Example: There are sufficient feeding
opportunities for osprey in area streams and rivers, but nesting habitat is scarce
and is limiting the local population. Osprey nesting platforms could be installed
in strategic locations throughout relevant habitat.
Habitat Preservation: This involves preservation of habitat that would otherwise
be developed or degraded. Example: A developer is planning to purchase land to
construct a shopping center. The land is adjacent to a stream that supports
29
threatened mussel species, and is visible from nearby hiking trails. Purchase and
preservation of the property would prevent the degradation of the area within the
shopping center footprint, the stream, and the viewshed. Habitat preservation
activities could also include the acquisition of ecologically valuable habitat or
establishment of conservation easements on riparian habitat along ecologically
valuable waterways.
3.3.3 ALTERNATIVE C: PROVISION OF NEW/IMPROVED RECREATIONAL
OPPORTUNITIES WI THIN THE EMORY, CLINCH AND WATTS BAR WATERSHEDS
New/improved recreational opportunities within the Emory, Clinch and Watts Bar
watersheds are expected to provide natural resource services similar to the services lost
due to the TVA-KIF spill. This alternative includes new or improved opportunities for
recreational fishing and/or boating within the Emory, Clinch and Watts Bar watersheds,
as well as other aquatic habitat-related recreational activities (e.g., swimming, hiking, and
bird-watching). For example, the Trustees could acquire property and develop a
fishing/boating pier and ramp in a section of river previously inaccessible to the public.
The Trustees are also considering improving existing access areas, such as through
additional parking, improved amenities, and/or shoreline stabilization to improve bank
fishing. These types of opportunities within the watersheds would enable the Trustees to
conduct restoration in areas where formal closures were not implemented, but where
public use of resources may have been affected by the spill. For example, members of the
public may have forgone fishing trips or enjoyed a lesser quality of fishing trip in areas
downstream of the closures.
3.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT PURSUED
The Trustees identified, but eliminated from further evaluation, two additional restoration
alternatives: habitat restoration outside the Emory, Clinch and Watts Bar watersheds and
provision of new/improved recreation opportunities outside of the Emory, Clinch and
Watts Bar watersheds.
3.4.1 HABITAT RESTORATION OUTSIDE THE EMORY, CLINCH AND WATTS BAR
WATERSHEDS
The Trustees considered the potential benefits of restoration projects intended to restore
aquatic habitat outside the Emory, Clinch and Watts Bar watersheds, but chose not to
evaluate this alternative. Habitat restoration outside the Emory, Clinch and Watts Bar
watersheds is not as likely to provide the same type of ecological services as those injured
due to the TVA-KIF spill, and would not provide a similar level of habitat connectivity as
projects within the affected watersheds.
3.4.2 PROVISION OF NEW/IMPROVED RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES OUTSIDE THE
EMORY, CLINCH AND WATTS BAR WATERSHEDS
The Trustees considered the potential benefits of restoration projects intended to create
and/or improve recreation opportunities outside the Emory, Clinch and Watts Bar
watersheds, but chose not to evaluate this alternative. Because formal closures due to the
TVA-KIF spill were not implemented outside the Emory, Clinch and Watts Bar
30
watersheds, it is likely these areas did not see the same reduction in diminished or
foregone recreation trips as areas within the Emory, Clinch and Watts Bar watersheds.
Therefore, implementation of projects outside the Emory, Clinch and Watts Bar
watersheds is unlikely to provide benefits to the members of the public that did
experience a loss in recreational services as a result of the TVA-KIF spill.
31
CHAPTER 4 | EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVES
This chapter presents an evaluation of the proposed restoration alternatives described in
Chapter 3. The Trustees’ primary goal is to select restoration alternatives that sufficiently
compensate the public for natural resource injuries and associated service losses resulting
from the TVA-KIF ash spill. As noted in Chapter 2, available information indicates that
the most substantial injuries and service losses resulted from: 1) the ecological effects of
ash smothering and corresponding dredging to remove the ash, and 2) reductions in the
frequency and value of recreational activities such as fishing and boating. In order to
ensure the appropriateness and acceptability of the proposed restoration alternatives in
light of spill-related ecological and recreational losses, the Trustees evaluated each option
against site-specific and DOI restoration criteria.
The criteria specific to compensatory restoration for the TVA-KIF spill include:
1. Location within the Emory, Clinch and Watts Bar watersheds; and
2. Habitat connectivity (e.g., larger/more connected parcels provide greater resource
services than smaller disconnected parcels).
The DOI NRDA regulations at 43 C.F.R. §11.82(d) include the following restoration
project criteria:
1. Technical feasibility (i.e., whether it is possible to implement the alternative);
2. The relative cost-effectiveness of different alternatives (i.e., if two
alternatives are expected to produce similar benefits, the least costly one is
preferred);
3. The probability of project success (i.e., the likelihood that implementing the
alternative would produce the desired results);
4. Proximity and benefit to the affected natural resources and services;
5. Potential for multiple resource benefits;
6. The results of actual or currently-planned response actions;
7. The potential for collateral injury to the environment resulting from the
proposed actions, including long-term and indirect impacts, to the injured
resources or other resources if the alternative is implemented;
8. The ability of the natural resources to recover with or without each
alternative, and the time required for such recovery;
9. Potential effects on public health and safety; and
32
10. Compliance with applicable Federal and state laws.
4.1 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION/NATURAL RECOVERY
Under the No Action/Natural Recovery alternative, the public would not be fully
compensated for injuries to trust resources or for associated reductions in ecological and
recreational services.
Under the No Action scenario, natural resources in the TVA-KIF assessment area would
continue to be influenced by a variety of ongoing ecological stressors (e.g., invasive
species, shoreline erosion and instability). The absence of Trustee-funded restoration
activity under the No Action alternative therefore results in lower environmental quality
and reduced natural resource services within the region than if restoration projects were
implemented.
The Trustees expect that many of the natural resources and services impacted by ash
smothering and dredging will recover naturally. However, this recovery could be slow
and may fall short of conditions achieved through active restoration efforts. Under the No
Action Alternative, the public would not receive compensation for interim losses. Habitat
quality would not be improved above baseline, recreational fishing and boating
opportunities would not increase, and no additional options for swimming, wildlife
viewing, or other aquatic-based recreational activities would be available to the public.
Although the No Action alternative provides a useful reference point for characterizing
the impact of the other restoration alternatives as required by NEPA, it fails to fulfill the
Trustees’ mandate under CERCLA. The Trustees are required under CERCLA to use the
settlement funds to restore, replace or acquire the equivalent of injured resources.
Therefore, the Trustees do not consider No Action a viable alternative.
4.2 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE B: HABITAT RESTORATION WITHIN THE
EMORY, CLINCH AND WATTS BAR WATERSHEDS
The habitat restoration options described in Chapter 3 have the potential to accomplish
the primary goal of compensating the public for injuries to Trust resources and associated
ecological service reductions. Habitat creation and restoration activities provide natural
resource services similar to the assessment area’s baseline services. For example, the
restored wetlands and shoreline/riparian areas provide habitat for breeding and migratory
fish and birds, improve water quality by filtering sediments and other pollutants from the
water column, reduce erosion, and export detritus (energy source for the aquatic food
web). Further, these activities influence increased production of forage fish which
provide additional prey for piscivorous fish, birds, reptiles, and mammals. Preservation
restoration activities such as land acquisition and conservation easements protect
ecologically viable habitat from current and future development. Additionally, potential
habitat restoration activities within the Emory, Clinch and Watts Bar watersheds would
specifically promote habitat connectivity throughout the assessment area, which is critical
for providing high quality aquatic ecological services similar to those lost.
33
As part of the Trustees’ evaluation of this alternative, they considered the environmental
consequences that could be caused by implementing the restoration options described
above. Although most of the changes likely to occur to trust resources as a result of
habitat restoration would be positive, some short-term negative impacts also may occur.
For example, any aquatic restoration project requiring the use of mechanical equipment
and/or soil or sediment disturbance has the potential for local, short-term adverse impacts.
These potential impacts may include increased turbidity and sedimentation, dust, noise,
and the potential for releases of oil products. Use of best management practices during
construction would avoid or minimize any adverse impacts and ensure no significant
adverse impacts. In addition, the Trustees expect any of these adverse effects to be
temporary and minor, and would be outweighed by the potential long-term ecological
benefits of the ecological projects.
4.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE C: PROVISION OF NEW/IMPROVED
RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN THE EMORY, CLINCH AND WATTS
BAR WATERSHEDS
The recreation restoration options described in Chapter 3 have the potential to accomplish
the primary goal of compensating the public for injuries to Trust resources and associated
service reductions. This alternative could include new or improved opportunities for
recreational fishing and/or boating, as well as other aquatic habitat-related recreational
activities (e.g., swimming, hiking, bird-watching). Recreation-related restoration
opportunities within the Emory, Clinch and Watts Bar watersheds would enable the
Trustees to conduct restoration in areas where formal closures were not implemented, but
where public use of resources may have been affected by the spill. For example, members
of the public may have forgone fishing trips or enjoyed a lesser quality of fishing trip in
areas downstream of the closures.
As part of the Trustees’ evaluation of this alternative, they considered the environmental
consequences that could be caused by implementing the options described above.
Although most of the changes likely to occur to trust resources as a result of recreation-
related restoration would be positive, some short-term negative impacts also may occur.
For example, construction activities associated with the development of a new fishing
pier could cause short-term habitat degradation effects, such as the displacement of river
sediments, increased turbidity, and recreation use loss (e.g., if the construction occurs at
an existing access point). However, the Trustees expect these adverse effects to be
temporary and minor, and would be outweighed by the potential long-term recreational
benefits of the recreation projects.
34
CHAPTER 5 | PREFERRED RESTORATION ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY
The Trustees evaluated three restoration alternatives that address natural resource injuries
and service reductions resulting from the TVA-KIF spill. Based on the site-specific and
regulatory criteria described in Chapter 4, the Trustees selected a combination of
Alternatives B and C as the preferred restoration alternative (summarized in Exhibit 5-1).
The Trustees believe these alternatives compensate the public for losses due to the TVA-
KIF spill, and satisfy the site-specific and DOI NRDA regulations criteria described in
Chapter 4.
As this RCDP is finalized, the Trustees will begin to identify and evaluate specific project
options based on the preferred alternatives. Each project will be evaluated against the
same restoration criteria described above, and, if needed, a further review of
environmental consequences will be conducted. Any selected projects that are expected to
have non-negligible impacts will be subject to a project-specific NEPA analysis prior to
implementation. In addition, a Section 7 consultation (under the Endangered Species Act)
will be completed for restoration projects that may affect threatened or endangered
species and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act will be followed for
each restoration project that will be implemented.
The Trustees will continue to inform the public of restoration project plans and progress.
35
EXHIBIT 5-1 EXAMPLE EMORY, CLINCH AND WATTS BAR WATERSHED RESTORATIO N OPTIONS AND
TRUST RESOURCES POTENTIALLY BENEFITED
ALTERNATIVE B AND C
COMPONENTS1 GENERIC DESCRIPTION
TRUST RESOURCES/RESOURCE
SERVICES POTENTIALLY
BENEFITED
Habitat Creation Converting one habitat
type to another.
Surface Water
Sediments
Aquatic Invertebrates
Fish
Birds
Turtles
Amphibians
Mammals
Habitat Restoration
Improving degraded
habitat or returning
former habitat to natural
conditions.
Habitat Enhancement
Increasing one or more of
the services provided by
an existing habitat.
Land Acquisition and
Easements
Preserving habitat that
would otherwise be
developed or degraded.
Public Access
Providing new or
enhancing existing access
for recreational
opportunities.
Public recreation
Note:
1. Restoration alternatives must be within the Emory, Clinch and Watts Bar watersheds.
5.1 EVALUATION BASED ON CRITERIA
In order to determine the appropriateness and sufficiency of the preferred restoration
alternatives, the components of the habitat restoration and new/improved recreation
activities within the Emory, Clinch and Watts Bar watersheds were evaluated based on
the criteria described in Chapter 4. Site-specific criteria and the criteria listed in the DOI
regulation for damage assessment [43 CFR Section 11.82 (d)] were considered as
follows:
Site-specific criteria:
Location within the Emory, Clinch and Watts Bar watersheds. Habitat
restoration and new/improved recreation projects chosen by the Trustees will
be implemented completely within the Emory, Clinch and Watts Bar
watersheds, which is where natural resources have been and continue to be
injured as a result of the TVA-KIF ash spill and corresponding remedial
actions.
36
Habitat connectivity (e.g., larger/more connected parcels provide greater
resource services than smaller disconnected parcels). The Trustees will
focus on selecting and implementing projects that will maximize habitat
connectivity. For example, they may prioritize projects that are: on land
adjacent to property that is already preserved, on land adjacent to a water
body, on a large parcel of land, and/or on land that has been identified as a
part of a habitat corridor. Habitat restoration, creation, and enhancement are
all project types that, if sited correctly, can improve habitat connectivity.
DOI NRDA regulations at 43 C.F.R. §11.82(d):
Technical feasibility (i.e., whether it is possible to implement the alternative).
Habitat restoration, recreation, and enhancement projects and the
implementation of new/improved recreation activities within the Emory,
Clinch and Watts Bar watersheds are technically feasible. The Trustees plan
to apply methods that have been successful in other locations, and will work
closely with project proponents to ensure that the design satisfies this
criterion. When the Trustees review specific projects, they will evaluate the
technical feasibility of implementing each project in further detail.
The relative cost-effectiveness of different alternatives (i.e., if two
alternatives are expected to produce similar benefits, the least costly one is
preferred). Habitat restoration, creation, and enhancement projects and the
implementation new/improved recreation activities within the Emory, Clinch
and Watts Bar watersheds can all be cost effective when implemented in an
appropriate location using technically feasible methods. The Trustees will
focus on gaining the maximum ecological and/or recreational benefit per
dollar spent. When the Trustees review specific projects, they will evaluate
the cost-effectiveness of each project in further detail.
The probability of project success (i.e., the likelihood that implementing the
alternative would produce the desired results). Habitat restoration, creation,
and enhancement as well as recreational enhancement projects similar to the
preferred alternative have previously successfully been implemented within
the Emory, Clinch and Watts Bar watersheds. When the Trustees review
specific projects, they will evaluate each project’s probability of success in
further detail.
Proximity and benefit to the affected natural resources and services. Habitat
restoration, creation, and enhancement projects will be specifically targeted
to benefit trust resources that utilize aquatic habitat. Example habitat types
include open water, riparian/shoreline areas, and wetlands. This will directly
benefit resources such as invertebrates, fish, birds, and mammals, all of
which incurred some injury as a result of the TVA-KIF ash spill. Similarly,
recreational-related projects will be designed to provide increased and/or
improved opportunities for public recreational fishing and boating – activities
which were lost or diminished in quality due to the spill. As noted under the
37
site-specific criteria, projects will be located within the Emory, Clinch and
Watts Bar watersheds, maximizing proximity to injured resources.
Potential for multiple resource benefits. The variety of potential habitat and
recreation activities will allow for these projects to benefit multiple resources
and resource services. Recreation projects such as the installation of a new
boat ramp will enhance public access and both recreational boating and
fishing activities injured by the spill. Habitat restoration such as in-stream
alterations will improve ecological functions such as water flow and cover
for fish and invertebrates, which will not only provide direct benefit to those
resources, but benefits to the resources that rely on invertebrates and fish for
food, and to anglers who would enjoy an increase catch rate as fish
populations improve.
The results of actual or currently-planned response actions. Remedial
activities at the Site are complete.
The potential for collateral injury to the environment resulting from the
proposed actions, including long-term and indirect impacts, to the injured
resources or other resources if the alternative is implemented. The Trustees
will evaluate and implement habitat and recreation project options within the
Emory, Clinch and Watts Bar watersheds that are specifically designed to
improve the conditions of the associated resources. Designs will be
evaluated to ensure that the potential for causing additional direct or indirect
injury through the projects is minimal compared to the ecological and
recreational benefit the project is expected to generate.
The ability of the natural resources to recover with or without each
alternative, and the time required for such recovery. The Trustees expect
that many of the natural resources and services impacted by ash smothering
and dredging will recover naturally. However, this recovery would be slow
and may fall short of conditions achieved through the preferred alternative
active restoration efforts.
Potential effects on public health and safety. Habitat restoration and the
implementation of new/improved recreation activities may result in potential
exposure to contaminants and the risk of injury from heavy equipment (e.g.,
dredging and construction equipment). The Trustees, however, expect that
public exposure to these areas during restoration will be minimized, thereby
limiting or possibly eliminating any risk.
Compliance with applicable Federal and state laws. The Trustees’
consideration of this criterion is discussed in Chapter 1. In addition, the
Trustees will review specific project proposals to ensure continued
compliance.
38
REFERENCES
Arcadis. 2012. Kingston Ash Recovery Project Non-Time Critical Removal Action River
System Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment (BERA). Prepared for Tennessee
Valley Authority.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Non-Time Critical Removal Action
River System Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Fact Sheet: TVA Kingston Fly
Ash Release Site, Harriman, Roane County, Tennessee.
Freeman, A.M. 1993. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values, Theory
and Methods. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
Harper, M.P. and B.L. Peckarsky. 2005. Effects of pulsed and pressed disturbances on the
benthic invertebrate community following a coal spill in a small stream in
northeastern USA. Hydrobiologia 544: 241-247
Jakus, P.M., M. Downing, M.S. Bevelhimer, and J.M. Fly. 1997. Do Sportfish
Consumption Advisories Affect Reservoir Anglers’ Site Choice. Agricultural and
Resource Economics Review 26(2).
McKinney, D. 2014. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Environmental Services
Chief. Personal communication. December 2.
Muotka, T., R. Paavola, A. Haapala, M. Novikmec, and P. Laasonnen. 2001. Long-term
recovery of stream habitat structure and benthic communities from in-stream
restoration. Biological Conservation 105:243-253.
NOAA. 1999. Discounting and the Treatment of Uncertainty in Natural Resource
Damage Assessment. Technical Paper 99-1. February 19.
TDEC (Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the Tennessee Valley Authority). 2011. Memorandum of Agreement
Establishing and Process and Method for Resolving a Natural Resource Damage
Claim.
TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority). 2012. Site-Specific Post Kingston Coal Ash Release
Contaminant Concentration Data.
TVA. 2011. TVA Kingston Fossil Fuel Plant Release Site On-Scene Coordinator Report
for the Time-Critical Removal Action May 11, 2009 through December 2010,
Harriman, Roane County, Tennessee.
TVA. 2010. Kingston Ash Recovery Project Non-Time Critical Removal Action Work
Plan for the Embayment/Dredge Cell.
TVA. 2009. Watts Bar Reservoir Land Management Plan. Loudon, Meigs, Rhea, and
Roane Counties, Tennessee. Final Environmental Impact Statement.
TVA and Jacobs Engineering. 2011. Swan Pond Embayment Restoration and Recreation
Park Master Plan.
TVA and Jacobs Engineering. 2010. TVA Community Involvement Plan for the Kingston
Ash Recovery Project.
A-1
APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS COMPARED TO
SCREENING CRITERIA/THRESHOLDS
EXHIBIT A -1 COMPARISON OF OBSERVED SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS (MG/KG) TO SCREENING
CRITERIA (MG/KG)
CONTAMINANT
SCREENING CRITERIA
CLINCH
(2010-2011)
DREDGE
AREA
(2009-2011)
EMORY
ABOVE
DREDGE
(2011)
WATTS BAR
(2010-2011) VALUE SOURCE
Arsenic 33 (2) 13.37 18.77 3.61 10.70
Arsenic (Speciation Lab)
33 (2)
16.19 19.33 5.78 19.59
Inorganic Arsenic 33 (2) 13.66 19.12 4.80 17.10
Organic Arsenic 33 (2) 3.67 2.67 1.32 3.65
Cadmium 4.98 (2) 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.14
Chromium 111 (2) 27.28 19.78 9.88 19.10
Copper 149 (2) 19.60 20.99 5.88 15.77
Lead 128 (2) 18.12 14.41 7.63 14.62
Mercury 1.06 (2) 0.22 0.13 0.03 0.27
Mercury (Speciation Lab)
1.06 (2)
0.45 0.08 0.08 0.47
Nickel 48.6 (2) 17.34 20.03 9.33 14.49
Selenium 4 (1) 0.98 1.51 0.86 1.19
Vanadium 50 (3) 38.87 34.44 13.53 30.19
Zinc 459 (2) 61.73 50.57 32.90 67.39
Total PAHs 22.8 (2) 0.30 0.23 0.46 0.64
Note: Any observed concentration in exceedence of a criterion may cause a loss in ecological services, and is highlighted in yellow. Green indicates that a geometric mean concentration did not exceed the criterion for that contaminant.
Data Source: Tennessee Valley Authority. 2012. Site-Specific Post Kingston Coal Ash Release Contaminant Concentration Data.
Screening Criteria Sources:
1. DOI 1998
2. MacDonald et al. 2000
3. NOAA 1999
A-2
EXHIBIT A -2 COMPARISON OF OBSERVED FISH CONCENTRATIONS (MG/KG) TO SCREENING
CRITERIA (MG/KG)
CONTAMINANT
SCREENING CRITERIA CLINCH
(2009-2011)
DREDGE AREA
(2009-2011)
EMORY ABOVE
DREDGE
(2010-2011) VALUE SOURCE
Arsenic 0.49 (12) 0.43 0.40 0.27
Arsenic
(Speciation Lab) 0.49
(12) 0.79 0.31 0.24
Inorganic
Arsenic 0.49
(12)
0.21 0.00 0.00
Organic Arsenic 0.49 (12) 0.41 0.31 0.24
Cadmium 0.17 (4),(7),(11),(1) 0.01 0.01 0.01
Chromium 0.8 (6) 0.43 0.22 0.14
Copper 1.6 (9),(8),(3) 1.31 0.84 0.83
Lead 0.4 (5) 0.26 0.12 0.08
Mercury 0.2 (13),(2),(10),(5) 0.02 0.01 0.01
Nickel 40 (12) 0.29 0.16 0.11
Selenium 4 (12) 0.59 0.69 0.46
Vanadium Insufficient Information 0.45 0.26 0.09
Zinc 40 (5) 20.41 22.04 18.96
Note: Any observed concentration in exceedence of a criterion may cause a loss in ecological services, and is
highlighted in yellow. Green indicates that a geometric mean concentration did not exceed the criterion for
that contaminant.
Data Source: Tennessee Valley Authority. 2012. Site-Specific Post Kingston Coal Ash Release Contaminant
Concentration Data.
Screening Criteria Sources:
1. Cope et al. 1994
2. Friedmann et al. 2002
3. Hansen et al. 2002
4. Hansen et al. 2004
5. Hinck et al. 2009
6. Irwin et al. 1997
7. Kumada et al. 1972
8. Lundebye et al. 1999
9. Marr et al. 1996
10. Matta et al. 2001
11. Spehar et al. 1978
12. Industrial Economics, Inc. 2012.
13. Weis and Weis 1978
A-3
EXHIBIT A -3 COMPARISON OF OBSERVED FISH CONCENTRATIONS (MG/KG – D IET) TO AVIAN
DIETARY SCREENING CR ITERIA (MG/KG - D IET)
CONTAMINANT
SCREENING CRITERIA CLINCH
(2009-2011)
DREDGE AREA
(2009-2011)
EMORY ABOVE
DREDGE
(2010-2011) VALUE SOURCE
Arsenic 30 (8) 0.43 0.40 0.27
Arsenic (from
speciation lab) 30
(8) 0.79 0.31 0.24
Inorganic Arsenic 30 (8) 0.21 0.00 0.00
Organic Arsenic 30 (8) 0.41 0.31 0.24
Cadmium 0.5 (1),(3) 0.01 0.01 0.01
Chromium 15.4 (6) 0.43 0.22 0.14
Copper 52 (7),(2) 1.31 0.84 0.83
Lead 16.3 (5) 0.26 0.12 0.08
Mercury 0.02 (6),(9) 0.02 0.01 0.01
Nickel 2.5 (8) 0.29 0.16 0.11
Selenium 1 (8) 0.59 0.69 0.46
Vanadium 5 (8) 0.45 0.26 0.09
Zinc 4 (4) 20.41 22.04 18.96
Note: Any observed concentration in exceedence of a criterion may cause a loss in ecological services, and is
highlighted in yellow. Green indicates that a geometric mean concentration did not exceed the criterion for
that contaminant.
Data Source: Tennessee Valley Authority. 2012. Site-Specific Post Kingston Coal Ash Release Contaminant
Concentration Data.
Screening Criteria Sources:
1. Burger et al. 2005
2. Chiou et al. 1997
3. Eisler 2000
4. Hinck et al. 2006
5. Hinck et al. 2009
6. Irwin et al. 1997
7. Kassim and Suwanpradit 1996
8. Industrial Economics, Inc. 2012.
9. Yeardley et al., 1998
A-4
REFERENCES
Burger, J., K.R. Campbell, T.S. Campbell, T. Shukla, C. Dixon, and M. Gochfeld. 2005.
Use of Central stonerollers (Cyprinidae: Campostoma anomalum) from Tennessee
as a bioindicator of metal contamination. Environ. Monit. Assess. 110:171-184.
Chiou, P. W., K. Chen, and B. Yu. 1997. Toxicity, tissue accumulation, and residue in
egg and excreta of copper in laying hens. Animal Feed Science Technology 67:49-
60.
Cope, W.G., J.G. Wiener, and G.J. Atchison. 1994. Hepatic cadmium metal-binding
proteins, and bioaccumulation in bluegills exposed to aqueous cadmium. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 13(4):553-562.
DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior). 1998. National Irrigation Water Quality Program
Information Report No. 3. Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effects of
Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. Selenium. Table 32.
Eisler, R. 2000. Handbook of chemical risk assessment: health hazards to humans, plants
and animals. Volume 1: Metals. Lewis Publishers, New York.
Friedmann, A.S., E.K. Costain, D.L. MacLatchy, W. Stansley, and E.J. Washuta. 2002.
Effect of mercury of general and reproductive health of largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides) from three lakes in New Jersey. Ecotoxicology and
Environmental Safety 52:117-122.
Hansen, J.A., J. Lipton, P.G. Welsh, D. Cacela, and B. MacConnell. 2004. Reduced
growth of rainbow trout fed a live invertebrate diet pre-exposed to metal
contaminated sediments. Environ Toxicol.& Chem. 23:1902-1911.
Hansen, J. A., J. Lipton, P. G. Welsh, J. Morris, D. Cacela, and M. J. Suedkamp. 2002.
Relationship between exposure duration, tissue residues, growth, and mortality in
rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) juveniles sub-chronically exposed to copper.
Aquatic Toxicology 58:175-188.
Hinck. J.E., C.J. Schmitt, K.R. Echols, T.W. May, C.E. Orazio, and D.E. Tillet. 2006.
Environmental Contaminants in Fish and their Associated Risk to Piscivorous
Wildlife in the Yukon River Basin, Alaska. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 51:
661-672.
Hinck, J.E., C.J. Schmitt, K.A. Chojnacki, and D.E. Tillitt. 2009. Environmental
contaminants in freshwater fish and their risk to piscivorous wildlife based on a
national monitoring program. Environ Monit. Assess. 152:469-494.
Industrial Economics, Inc. 2012. Review of ARCADIS Toxicological Profiles Reports for
the Tennessee Valley Authority Kingston Fossil Plant Ash Release Natural Resource
Damage Assessment: Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury,
Nickel, PAHs, Selenium, and Vanadium.
Irwin, R.J., M. VanMouwerik, L. Stevens, M.D. Seese, and W. Basham. 1997.
Environmental Contaminants Encyclopedia. National Park Service, Water Resource
A-5
Division, Fort Collins, Colorado. Distributed within the Federal Government as an
Electronic Document (Projected public availability on the internet or NTIS: 1998).
Kassim, H. and S. Suwanpradit. 1996. The influence of copper on the total sulphur amino
acids requirement of broilers during two growing periods. Department of Animal
Sciences, University Pertanian Malaysia. Selangor, Malaysia.
Kumada H., S. Kimura, M. Yokote, and Y. Matida. 1972. Acute and chronic toxicity,
uptake and retention of cadmium in freshwater organisms. Bull. Fresh. Fish. Res.
22:157-165.
Lundebye, A. K., M. H. G. Berntssen, S. E. Wendelaar Bonga, and A. Maage. 1999.
Biochemical and physiological responses in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) following
dietary exposure to copper and cadmium. Marine Pollution Bulletin 39:137-144.
MacDonald, D.D., C.G. Ingersoll, and T.A. Berger. 2000. Development and Evaluation
of Consensus-Based Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Ecosystems. Arch.
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 39: 20-31.
Marr, J. C. A., J. Lipton, D. Cacela, J. A. Hansen, H. L. Bergman, J. S. Meyer, and C.
Hogstrand. 1996. Relationship between copper exposure duration, tissue copper
concentration, and rainbow trout growth. Aquatic Toxicology 36:17-30.
Matta, M.B., J. Linse, C. Carincross, L. Francendese, and R.M. Kocan. 2001.
Reproductive and transgenerational effects of methylmercury or Aroclor 1268 on
Fundulus heteroclitus. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 20(2):327-335.
NOAA. 1999. Discounting and the Treatment of Uncertainty in Natural Resource
Damage Assessment. Technical Paper 99-1. February 19.
Spehar, R.L., E.N. Leonard, and D.L. Defoe. 1978. Chronic effects of cadmium and zinc
mixtures on flagfish (Jordanella floridae). Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 107(2): 354-360.
TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority). 2012. Site-Specific Post Kingston Coal Ash Release
Contaminant Concentration Data.
Weis, P. and J.S. Weis. 1978. Methylmercury inhibition of fin regeneration in fishes and
its interaction with salinity and cadmium. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 6:
327-334.
Yeardley, Jr, R. B., J.M. Lazorchak, and S.G. Paulsen. 1998. Elemental fish tissue
contamination in northeastern U.S. lakes: Evaluation of an approach to regional
assessment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17:1875–1884.
B-1
APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF HABITAT EQUIVALENCY ANALYSIS INJURY INPUTS AND RESULTS BY RIVER
SECTION
EXHIBIT B-1 DREDGED AREA HEA INPUTS AND RESULTS
RIVER SEGMENT1
ACRES OF
AQUATIC
HABITAT
SERVICE LOSS2 RECOVERY
BEGINS DSAYS
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Segment 1 22 100% 100% 41% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2011 59
Segment 2/3 6 100% 100% 41% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2011 17
Segment 4 7 100% 100% 41% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2011 19
Segment 5 20 100% 100% 54% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2011 58
Above Segment 5 24 100% 100% 74% 47% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2011 84
Above-Above Segment 5 23 100% 100% 54% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2011 66
Dike 2 33 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 41% 8% 0% 2014 189
Church Slough 5 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2010 4
East Embayment-South End 10 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 41% 8% 0% 2014 57
East Embayment-North End 9 100% 100% 41% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2011 25
Middle Embayment 51 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 41% 8% 0% 2014 289
North Embayment-South End 37 100% 100% 100% 41% 8% 0% 0% 0% 2012 135
North Embayment-North End 24 100% 100% 100% 41% 8% 0% 0% 0% 2012 89
Sub-Total4 1,091
Notes:
1. Service loss is based on the comparison of several metrics evaluating benthic community health (abundance, richness, and percent sensitive species)
for each segment to values for reference areas.
2. For areas that have not returned to baseline conditions, recovery is expected to take two years.
3. Benthic community data were not available for all segments. Information on how data gaps were filled is provided earlier in this memo.
4. Total includes this dredged area sub-total plus the sub-total for ash-affected areas (Exhibit B-2).
B-2
EXHIBIT B -2 ADDITIONAL ASH AFFECTED AREAS HEA INPUTS AND RESULTS
RIVER SEGMENT1 ACRES OF
AQUATIC HABITAT
SERVICE LOSS2 DSAYs
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Segment 1 14 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0
Segment 2/3 10 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0
Segment 4 22 0% 11% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4
Segment 5 22 6% 6% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4
Above Segment 5 32 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0
Above Above Segment 5 69 30% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 24
Below Segment 4, West 88 0% 32% 16% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 45
Below Segment 4, East 96 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0
Below Segment 4, Embayment 25 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0
North of Segment 4 23 0% 11% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4
Intake Channel 62 0% 16% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 16
East of Segment 1 139 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0
North of Segment 5 57 23% 23% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 36
Sub-Total4 133
Notes: 1. Service loss is based on the comparison of several metrics evaluating benthic community health (abundance, richness, and percent sensitive species) for each segment to values for reference areas. 2. For areas that have not returned to baseline conditions, recovery is expected to take two years. 3. Benthic community data were not available for all segments. Information on how data gaps were filled is provided earlier in this memo. 4. Total includes the dredged area sub-total (Exhibit B-1) plus this sub-total for ash-affected areas.
C-1
APPENDIX C SWAN POND HABITAT EQUIVALENCY ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT C-1 SWAN POND AQUATIC HA BITAT RESTORATION INPUTS AND RESULTS 8, 9
ECOLOGICAL HEA INPUTS WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN / SHORELINE
RESTORATION BENEFITS
Final Level of Services 85%
Acres 90.05
Restoration start 2014
Restoration Complete 2014
Present Year 2013
Discount Rate 3%
Recovery Years 15
Recovery Begins 2015
Recovery Shape Linear
Time Frame 30 Years
Starting Level of Services 0%
TIMEFRAME OF BENEFITS10 TOTAL ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS
(DISCOUNT SERVICE ACRE-YEARS GAINED)
2013-2045 1,040
8 Includes wetland and riparian/shoreline restoration.
9 In addition to the 90 acres of wetland/shoreline restoration, the Swan Pond Master Plan includes 38 acres of wetland
preservation activities (as described in the ecological restoration section above). Because wetlands already receive some
protection under Federal law, and because the wetlands identified for preservation in the Master Plan are not known to be
under threat of development, the magnitude of ecological benefits gained through preservation is uncertain. Therefore, the
ecological service gains potentially associated with wetland preservation are not quantified.
10 Although restoration gains do not begin until 2015 (the year after construction ends), benefits are discounted to their value
in 2013 to be consistent with the calculation of losses in 2013.
D-1
APPENDIX D RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Trustees released the RCDP for public review in March 2015, and held a public
meeting to discuss the RCDP on April 9, 2015. Two individuals and two groups
submitted written comments during the review period. Responses to these comments are
provided below, organized by general topic. Note that comments are not presented
verbatim. To request a copy of the original comments, please contact:
Debbie Duren
Natural Resource Trustee Program Manager
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
761 Emory Valley Road
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
Debbie.Duren@tn.gov
TRUSTEE ROLES
Comment 1: It is not appropriate for TVA to participate in the NRDA and RCDP process
as both a Trustee and a responsible party; it is a clear conflict of interest.
Response 1: As described in Section 1.4 of the RCDP, Federal, State, and Tribal entities
are authorized to act as Trustees pursuant to Section 307(f) of CERCLA. Several Federal
agencies, including TVA, are designated to act on behalf of the public as Trustees for
natural resources under Federal jurisdiction. TVA has trust responsibilities for the natural
resources they manage or control. For example, TVA is responsible for the management
of 293,000 acres of public land and 11,000 miles of public shoreline in the TVA region,
including a significant portion of the land that was impacted by the 2008 KIF ash spill.
In this case, TVA is also the party responsible for the releases from the ash spill and
therefore also a potentially responsible party. Federal regulations require that the Trustees
invite the responsible party to participate in the damage assessment, whether the
responsible party is a private entity, a public agency, or a Trustee. The Trustees shall,
“invite the participation of the potentially responsible party…in the development of the
type and scope of the assessment and in the performance of the assessment.” (43 C.F.R. §
11.32(a)(2)(iii)(A). This type of coordination also assists the Trustees in meeting the
regulatory requirement of reasonable cost (i.e., the anticipated cost of the assessment is
expected to be less than the anticipated damage amount (43 C.F.R. § 11.14(ee))) by
increasing the efficiency of the NRDA process. TVA and the other Trustees signed a
Memorandum of Agreement in January 2011 regarding the conduct of the damage
assessment and have agreed to work cooperatively to resolve natural resource damages
resulting from the KIF coal ash release. While TVA has input into the damage assessment
and restoration planning process (examples provided in Section 1.4 of the RCDP),
D-2
decisions regarding final analytical parameters, methods, restoration priorities, and
sufficiency of proposed compensation are made by the Trustees as a whole.
PUBLIC PROCESS
Comment 2: The current public comment period is somewhat meaningless given that the
Swan Pond project is nearly complete. Obviously, the Trustees were committed to that
project, and to the $750,000, long before the draft RCDP was presented to the public, and
nothing the public could say at this point could affect this predetermined outcome.
Response 2: As stated in Chapter 3, the Trustees are considering a settlement with TVA
that is comprised of implementation and monitoring of the Swan Pond Embayment
Restoration and Recreation Park and a cash payment of $750,000 to fund additional
restoration projects. The Trustees evaluated this combination of projects and funding and
determined that it provides sufficient and appropriate compensation for ecological and
recreational losses. Considerations include:
Swan Pond satisfies both the site-specific and the DOI restoration criteria (43
C.F.R. § 11.82(d)) that are set out in Chapter 4 of the RCDP against which other
restoration projects are evaluated.
The DOI regulations state that Trustees should coordinate assessment and
restoration activities with remedial activities where feasible (43 C.F.R. §
11.23(f)) and 43 C.F.R. § 11.82(b)(ii)).
As part of public outreach and involvement efforts, TVA released the plan for the
Swan Pond Embayment Restoration and Recreation Park for Swan Pond for
public review and comment prior to the release of the RCDP. The final Swan
Pond plan, which is the one accounted for in the RCDP, was finalized after
consideration of the public comments TVA received during the comment period.
The Trustees will assess the ecological and recreational benefits of projects
proposed to be funded with the $750,000 against the site-specific and regulatory
criteria listed in Chapter 4 of the RCDP to ensure that full compensation is
achieved under the Preferred Alternative.
This public comment period requested public feedback on the RCDP prior to any
settlement agreement, specifically to understand the public’s opinion on the proposed
restoration package, and to determine whether any modifications were warranted. The
stage of completion of Swan Pond is not relevant to a settlement.
ASSESSMENT AREA
Comment 3: Did this NRDA and RCDP review and consider damage/negative impact to
private/public parties across the Emory River and downstream entities on the Clinch and
Watts Bar?
Response 3: In NRDA, Trustees are authorized to claim damages for losses resulting
from injuries to natural resources (43 C.F.R. § 11.14(aa)). Natural resources are described
D-3
in Section 2.2 of the RCDP and are defined by the DOI NRDA regulations at 43 C.F.R. §
§ 11.14 (z) as “land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water, drinking water
supplies, and other such resources belonging to, managed by, held in trust by,
appertaining to, or otherwise controlled…for the public” (emphasis added). This
definition and explicit direction to focus on public resources signifies that private party
interests are not claimable in this context.
This case specifically addresses natural resources within the assessment area, which
includes aquatic habitat (Emory River mile 6.0-0.0, Clinch River mile 5.0 to its
confluence with the Tennessee River, Tennessee River mile 568.7 downstream to Watts
Bar Dam), and wetland and riparian areas adjacent to the West, North, and East
Embayments and Swan Pond (Section 2.1).
BIOTA
Comment 4: Selenium is identified as a contaminant of concern by the EPA in sediments
used by certain insect larvae (e.g., midges), which are shown to be adversely impacted.
These insect larvae are a major food source for swallows. Swallows were shown to be
adversely impacted and are being further monitored. Why are only fish considered in
these exhibits and report?
Response 4: The commenter does not identify what data support the assertion that
midges and tree swallows were impacted. However, as described in Section 2.2 of the
RCDP, the Trustees’ analysis considered the following natural resources: sediment,
surface water, soil, plants, invertebrates, mussels, fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds and
mammals. Using available information, the Trustees evaluated injury to these resources
using three lines of evidence:
1. Contaminant concentrations to which natural resources have been exposed. This
includes sediment/benthic invertebrates, fish, and birds (Section 2.3.1 and
Appendix A).
2. Effects of dredging. The Trustees assign 100 percent initial service loss to
dredged areas to account for the fact that all resources within the dredged area
were adversely impacted (i.e., invertebrates, fish, birds, etc.). Recovery within the
dredged footprints is evaluated based on benthic community metrics. Of all the
affected resources, the benthic community is the least mobile and therefore is
expected to take the longest to return to pre-release/pre-dredge conditions within
the dredge footprint. In addition, sufficient data are available to inform benthic
recovery (Section 2.3.2). This is consistent with the DOI NRDA regulations,
which state that injury can be quantified based on, “Species or habitats that can
represent broad components of the ecosystem, either as representatives of a
particular ecological type, of a particular food chain, or of a particular service”
(43 C.F.R. § 11.71(l)(2)(i)).
3. Effects of ash in non-dredged areas. Among other functions, benthic invertebrate
communities are integral to maintaining the structure and function of the aquatic
ecosystem (e.g., the base of the aquatic food web), and play an important role in
D-4
ecosystem energy and nutrient cycling. In addition, available data on the impacts
of ash on the benthic community, as compared to data for other resources, were
the most comprehensive and relevant to the NRDA process. Therefore, the
Trustees chose the benthic invertebrate community as representative of the
overall aquatic community. That is, although injury is quantified based on
changes in benthic community metrics, those changes are expected to reflect
impacts to all aquatic-associated resources, including fish and birds (Section
2.3.2 and, as noted in number 2 above, in 43 C.F.R. § 11.71(l)(2)(i)).
Comment 5: Most fish species were shown to not be impacted; however, there is some
evidence "shell crackers" like sunfish may be exhibiting some stress and warrant further
monitoring. What fish species were considered for these exhibits? Were all fish lumped
into one set of numbers? Why?
Response 5: Fish species specifically considered in our analysis include those for which
data are readily available: black crappie, blue catfish, bluegill, channel catfish, gizzard
shad, largemouth bass, red ear sunfish, spotted bass, thread fin shad, and white crappie.
To assess injury to fish, the Trustees combined all fish species for two main reasons:
1) The Trustees’ goal is to evaluate injury to the fish community as a whole, which
is consistent both with the manner in which adverse effects information is
compiled (i.e., aggregated across a variety of species) and with the DOI NRDA
regulations, “The extent to which the injured biological resource differs from
baseline should be determined by analysis of the population or the habitat or
ecosystem levels. (43 C.F.R. § 11.71(l)(1)).
2) Data for any one individual species is insufficient in terms of number of samples
or geographic distribution to be able to meaningfully interpret results.
CONTAMINANTS
Comment 6: Selenium is identified as a contaminant of concern by the EPA and
exceeded threshold criteria for some biota sampling. How is selenium not considered in
the sediment concentrations in Exhibit A-1?
Response 6: Selenium concentrations are included in Exhibit A-1 of the RCDP, and were
found to not exceed the screening threshold criteria for sediment, fish, or birds.
Comment 7: The naturally-occurring metals are hazardous substances as defined by
CERCLA Section 101(14). Ash material also contains naturally-occurring radionuclides,
which are also hazardous substances as defined by CERCLA Section 101(14), (EPA-AO-
054). Has there been any consideration given and accounted for naturally-occurring
radionuclides in this NRDA and RCDP?
Response 7: Radionuclides are not addressed in this RCDP. The Trustees focused NRDA
efforts on contaminants that were detected at levels sufficient to trigger additional
D-5
evaluation. Radionuclides were evaluated as part of the initial screening in the BERA
(Arcadis 2012). Results indicated that radionuclide concentrations in the ash released
from the TVA Kingston Facility are so low as to not trigger a full risk evaluation (Arcadis
2012). The Trustees reviewed this conclusion and determined that radionuclide levels
were also too low to be assessed in the NRDA.
DATA SOURCES
Comment 8: Other than the EPA 2012 Non-Time Critical Removal Action River System
EE/CA Fact sheet, what other EPA related documents were used as sources of data and
information for this NRDA and RCDP? If none, why not?
Response 8: There are a suite of site-specific documents, many conducted under EPA
oversight, which the Trustees relied upon in conducting this NRDA. See Administrative
Record.
Comment 9: How were the sources of data and information selected and how was their
credibility determined? How were the sources used deemed credible? These appear
somewhat outdated against the recent EPA science performed specifically as a result of
the ash spill. For example, were the results from the BERA (Arcadis 2012) used?
Response 9: Data sources were selected based on relevance to contaminants of
concern/ash, consistency with the biological community in the assessment area, and
adverse effects resulting from exposure of biota to contaminants/ash. The credibility of
data sources was assessed by first evaluating the context for publication. For example,
peer-reviewed literature, studies conducted as part of remedial activities for the Kingston
ash release (including the BERA; Arcadis 2012), government agency policy documents,
and studies undertaken for a government agency are considered appropriate for use in this
NRDA (See Administrative Record). Second, where applicable, the Trustees assessed the
design, methods, and results (e.g., did the study have appropriate controls) of each study
to ensure that only studies of sufficient quality were included in the analysis.
SCREENING CRITERIA
Comment 10: Are the Screening Criteria sources endorsed by the EPA?
Response 10: As described in Section 2.3 of the RCDP and defined in the DOI NRDA
regulations at 43 C.F.R. § § 11.70, the screening criteria for the RCDP were developed by
the Trustees as part of the NRDA process. Screening criteria were developed to determine
the point at which natural resource exposure to concentrations of COCs are sufficient to
cause injury. Injury is defined as, “a measurable adverse change, either long- or short-
term, in the chemical or physical quality or the viability of a natural resource resulting
either directly or indirectly from exposure to a discharge of oil or release of a hazardous
substance” (43 C.F.R. § 11.14(v)). This is separate from the remedial process directed by
EPA (Section 1.6 of the RCDP), and therefore not specifically endorsed by EPA.
D-6
Comment 11: Even though it is said that the “majority of site-specific tissue and
sediment concentrations measured to-date where below corresponding thresholds,” what
about the minority exceeding thresholds; i.e., arsenic and selenium? The arsenic results
for one lab exceeding the screening criteria should not be discounted.
Response 11: While these exceedences indicate that injury may have occurred, the
evidence of service loss associated with these possible injuries is not compelling. As
identified in Appendix A of the RCDP, data indicate no exceedences of screening criteria
for sediment, an exceedence of one arsenic criterion in the Clinch River for fish, and an
exceedence of the zinc criterion in all areas for birds. No exceedences of selenium criteria
were identified. Because the screening criteria represent concentrations above which an
adverse effect may occur, it is possible that fish and/or birds within the assessment area
may have been injured (43 C.F.R. § 11.14(v)).
Once injury is determined, the Trustees then quantify that injury as a loss in resource
services. Services are defined in the DOI NRDA regulations as, “the physical and
biological functions performed by the resource, including the human uses of those
functions, [that result from the resource’s] physical, chemical, or biological quality” (43
C.F.R. § § 11.14 (nn)). However, it is unlikely that a measurable loss in services
resulting from ash-related contamination has occurred. For example, in the Clinch River,
sediment arsenic concentrations reported by other laboratories were below the screening
criteria, and verification that any effects of zinc on birds were caused by the coal ash spill
is limited, as zinc concentrations in reference areas are comparable to those within the
assessment area.
Given this information, the Trustees’ preferred restoration alternatives (described in
Chapters 4 and 5 of the RCDP) are expected to provide sufficient ecological benefits to
assessment area resources to account for any potential, minimal loss in ecological
services resulting from ash-related contamination.
Comment 12: Commenters question the selected screening criteria values as presented in
Exhibits A-1, A-2, and A-3. According to the commenters, the process for determining
criteria is unclear and the commenter is concerned that criteria were derived by Industrial
Economics. One commenter cites an alternative selenium sediment concentration
screening criterion of 2 mg/kg.
Response 12: The screening criteria presented in Appendix A of the RCDP were
identified through review of: 1) the Toxicological Profiles that support the Baseline
Ecological Risk Assessment (Arcadis 2012 Appendix D), 2) peer-reviewed and other
published literature, and 3) data on background concentrations. These criteria reflect
thresholds relevant to injury determination (as opposed to remedial risk determination;
Response 10 and Section 1.6 of the RCDP), that is, the lowest concentration at or above
which an adverse effect resulting in a loss of ecological services may occur. IEc did not
derive the criteria mathematically; rather, each criterion reflects the result of one or more
studies (Appendix A, “Source” column in Exhibits A-1 through A-3).
D-7
Although the commenter did not provide sufficient information regarding the source or
derivation of the 2 mg/kg they cite for selenium in sediment, average selenium
concentrations in the assessment area range between 0.86 mg/kg and 1.51 mg/kg
(Appendix A, Exhibit A-1), all of which are below 2 mg/kg.
DATA ANALYSIS
Comment 13: Why was the geometric mean chosen versus the arithmetic mean? Some
concentrations likely did exceed the criteria. Where were these located? How much did
they exceed the criteria?
Response 13: In this case, the geometric mean is the most appropriate measure of the
midpoint of the distribution of contaminant data. As stated in EPA (2000), “Due to the
skewed nature of many exposure distributions, the arithmetic mean may not be a good
indicator of the midpoint of a distribution (e.g., the 50th percentile). Under these
circumstances, a median value (e.g., the geometric mean) may provide more appropriate
information (Habicht 1992).” (p.2-36) This is further supported by other studies (e.g.,
Leith et al. 2010). In this case, observed contaminant concentrations are not normally
distributed. They are right-skewed, that is, many observed values are low, while a smaller
number of observed values are in the high end (or right hand tail) of the distribution.
These high concentrations introduce bias into the arithmetic mean, such that it
overestimates the true mean. Therefore, the Trustees utilize the geometric mean to assess
contaminant exposure within each sub-section of the assessment area.
The Trustees evaluate injury based on mean exposure concentrations, rather than for each
individual sample. Most organisms are mobile, and are therefore exposed to contaminant
concentrations (e.g., in sediment) over some area; they are not exposed solely to one
sample location. In addition, the Trustees are evaluating injury and corresponding service
losses to the overall biological community, which is appropriately reflected by the
average. While it is possible that an individual organism may have a contaminant body
burden that exceeds a screening criterion, it is unlikely that injury to one organism would
cause a measurable loss in ecological services.
Comment 14: The Trustees used half the detection limit. There are other options to
address non-detect results that would be more conservative and more accurately reflect
the environmental impact of the Kingston spill.
Response 14: The Trustees agree that other options for addressing non-detects are
available (e.g., assume non-detects equal zero or the full detection limit). However, we
disagree that an alternative option would more accurately reflect environmental
conditions. The fundamental nature of a detection limit implies that the true concentration
of a contaminant is unknown, and ranges between zero and the detection limit. Using half
the detection limit evenly distributes this uncertainty. Any alternative interpretation
would simply shift, not reduce, that uncertainty. As it is the Trustees’ goal to develop the
most reasonable, technically defensible estimate of damages, rather than the highest (or
lowest) value, an even distribution of uncertainty is appropriate.
D-8
Comment 15: Commenters have the following contaminant data requests: 1) detection
limits for each contaminant and method , and 2) a table of all data points used in the
analysis of contaminant-related injury, as well as a calculation of the mean, median, and
modified delta-lognormal values for each set of data. Commenters also request that these
results be evaluated before making a final determination of the natural resource damage
resulting from contaminant-related injury.
Response 15: All of the contaminant concentration data used in the analyses presented in
the RCDP can be found in the site-specific documents listed in the Administrative
Record. These sources provide a suite of data parameters including, but not limited to,
location, date of collection, analytical method, detection limit, contaminant concentration,
and qualifiers. Most of these documents are available on-line or are included in the
accompanying CD. In addition, TVA maintains a database of all contaminant data
collected as part of remedial efforts. This database includes most, if not all, data
presented in Administrative Record documents. For assistance with this database, please
contact TVA at tvainfo@tva.gov.
Per the Commenter’s request, the Trustees re-evaluated contaminant data (concentrations
and distribution), treatment of detection limits, and use of the geometric mean (more
detail in Responses to Comments 13 and 14). After this review, the Trustees’ conclusions
regarding injury and service losses to natural resources resulting from contaminants
associated with the TVA-KIF ash release are consistent with the draft RCDP.
ECOLOGICAL SERVICE LOSSES
Comment 16: EPA results included much data regarding the benthic community. Were
these results considered in the service losses?
Response 16: The commenter does not cite specific data sources, so we are not sure to
which data the commenter is referring. However, the Trustees’ analysis of benthic
community data, outlined in Appendix B of the RCDP, relies on data described in
Chapter 3 of Arcadis and TVA’s report “Updated Data Analysis and Temporal Trend
Evaluations in Biota: 2009-2013” published in October 2014 and available online at
http://www.tva.gov/kingston/pdf/Updated%20Biota%20Report%202009-2013.pdf. This
study was conducted as part of remedial efforts with EPA oversight.
Comment 17: Several commenters asked how service loss was determined for non-
dredged areas outlined in Exhibit B-1 including: Has the service loss been analyzed for
non-dredged areas for which ash deposits are known to exist? What is the recovery time
for non-dredged areas? How is it assumed that areas where no dredging occurred can
result in little to no present value losses? What is the basis for a recovery period of two
years to return to baseline conditions?
Response 17: For this NRDA, the Trustees use site-specific benthic community metrics
to measure recovery of the aquatic community (Response to Comment 4 explains
D-9
rationale for use of benthic community). Data were collected from 2009 through 2013 at
multiple locations within the assessment area, as well as reference locations (i.e.,
upstream of the spill area) on the Emory, Clinch, and Tennessee Rivers. For almost all
sections (dredged and non-dredged), benthic community data indicate that recovery was
complete in two years (Section 2.3.2 and Appendix B of the RCDP).
HUMAN USE LOSSES
Comment 18: Where is the detail of the site-specific estimates of fishing and boating
losses that led to the present value loss of $200,000? What is the source of these site-
specific estimates and how were these calculated? The footnote indicates a 1/3 wage rate
- is this assumed to be only 1 angler per trip? Often there is more than one person in the
boat.
Response 18: Section 2.3.3 of the RCDP discusses recreational losses related to impacted
fishing and boating activities. For fishing activities, the Trustees estimated damages using
the standard benefit transfer method. Commonly applied in NRDA, benefit transfer
applies per trip changes in value from a relevant literature study to the site-specific
estimates of affected trips. In this case, data from creel surveys conducted by TVA in the
vicinity of the assessment area were used to estimate the number of angling trips affected
by the ash release
For boating activities, the Trustees estimated the added cost incurred per trip to the
nearest open boat launch to be approximately $8.50. This is based on the additional out-
of-pocket cost of operating a vehicle and the per person opportunity cost of having to
drive farther (estimated as one-third the wage rate). The number of boats affected by the
ash release was estimated using boat registration information from the vicinity of the
assessment area. The Trustees agree that insofar as multiple people use a boat, the lost
opportunity cost is understated.
Comment 19: What about the loss of water sports, like swimming, paddle boarding,
wading. Why are boating trips for anglers only? What about boating trips for skiers,
swimmers, wake boarders, canoes, kayaks, etc.?
Response 19: The Trustees agree that other water sports such as swimming, wake
boarding, water skiing, canoeing, and kayaking are relevant to the area affected by the
spill. In this case, data are insufficient to quantify losses related to these activities, and
information on the number of participants and the lost value per trip/participant resulting
from closure of a section of the river are lacking. For example, boaters and anglers can be
tracked through license and/or permit sales, but that type of registration is not required for
other types of water-related recreation. However, because restoration activities within
Swan Pond and the Preferred Alternative will benefit recreators directly (e.g., via
increased access to the Emory River) and indirectly (e.g., via improved water quality), the
Trustees expect that participants in other water sports will be sufficiently compensated.
D-10
Comment 20: How was the value of $32.44 per trip value determined? Is there any
consideration as to trip lengths (e.g., 2 hours vs. 6 hours)?
Response 20: As stated in Section 2.3.3 of the RCDP, the $32.44 per trip value is derived
from the peer-reviewed literature (i.e., Jakus et al. 1997) and data collected from several
reservoirs in Middle and East Tennessee. Jakus et al. (1997) employ a random utility
model (RUM), which assumes that on any given trip occasion an individual will choose
the site that yields that highest level of expected utility. The study estimates values per
trip, accounting for a variety of trip lengths.
Comment 21: The residents of Roane County request TVA approve the TWRA request
to build a fishing pier at the new Wildlife Management Area on the Tennessee River just
a few miles downstream from the coal ash spill.
Response 21: The Trustees appreciate the public’s concern in this matter, but it is outside
the scope of this NRDA.
REMEDY
Comment 22: Why were private citizen settlement amounts based on being downriver
from the I-40 bridge rather than the amount of ash in a given area?
Response 22: As noted in the response to Comment 1, NRDA focuses on damages to
natural resources and losses in the services these resources provide to the public. Private
claims are outside the scope of the NRDA.
Comment 23: Is there anything in the plans to address the ash between the park and my
property (at Clinch River Mile 1.6)?
Response 23: Remedial issues are outside the scope of the NRDA.
RESTORATION
Comment 24: The losses are quantified into "discount service acre years (DSAYs)."
There is no calculation shown to indicate how the DSAYs were converted to $750,000.
How was the $750,000 value determined? Based on what?
Response 24: The Trustees are confident the $750,000 will fund sufficient projects such
that compensation for the remaining 184 DSAYs and additional recreational benefits will
be provided to the public. As specific projects are identified, the Trustees will assess the
ecological and recreational benefits of each project to ensure that full compensation is
achieved. Until specific projects are identified, however, the exact amount of funding
that will generate a specific number of DSAYs cannot be determined.
D-11
Comment 25: Why are pre-restoration services assumed to be zero percent due to ash
smothering and corresponding dredging activities? What were the ecological services
prior to the ash spill and what was their value lost?
Response 25: Section 3.1 of the RCDP describes the Trustees’ approach to quantifying
ecological benefits resulting from Swan Pond restoration. Due to the substantial
disturbance to the benthic invertebrate community, the Trustees assume that areas
smothered by ash and then subsequently dredged do not provide ecological services until
dredging is complete. This assumption is consistent with the injury quantification
approach described in Section 2.3.2.
In terms of ecological services provided by Swan Pond prior to the ash spill, we assume:
Areas that were occupied by yards, homes, or agricultural land were not habitat
and did not provide ecological services pre-spill. These areas are the focus of
restoration activities for which ecological service gains are estimated.
Existing wetlands provide ecological services, but preservation of these areas as
part of Swan Pond restoration activities did not increase the level of services.
That is, services provided prior to the spill and at the conclusion of restoration
activities are equal.
Comment 26: The alternatives analysis in the RCDP was constrained by the minimal
number of options considered. In essence, the RCDP listed two alternatives: do nothing,
or do the selected option. In particular, no alternatives to the Swan Pond restoration were
considered. Moreover, the RCDP did not meaningfully assess the no-action alternative,
which would have provided a baseline to which multiple action alternatives could have
been compared.
Response 26: First, the DOI NRDA regulations state that the Trustees “shall develop a
Restoration and Compensation Determination Plan that will list a reasonable number of
possible alternatives” (43 C.F.R. § 11.81(a)(1)). The Trustees contend that three
alternatives are reasonable. Second, the No Action Alternative in the context of the
RCDP is not the same as the No Action Alternative in the remedial process. In the RCDP,
the No Action Alternative accounts for completed, on-going, and planned remedial
actions consistent with whatever remedial alternative EPA identified as preferred, and
evaluates what no further restoration action would mean in terms of sufficiently
compensating the public for losses of natural resources and resource services. For the
TVA-KIF ash spill, a No Action Restoration Alternative would not initiate any
restoration action outside of currently funded programs, and therefore the public would
be under-compensated for both ecological and recreational losses [this is the “baseline” to
which the commenter refers]. Finally, because Swan Pond is a specific component of the
proposed settlement for natural resource damages, an alternatives assessment for this
project is not appropriate.
D-12
Comment 27: The RCDP does not define the selection process or criteria to allocate the
cash payment for additional habitat and recreation projects. These omissions make it
difficult to comment on the effectiveness of this element of the proposed cash payment
for restoration to offset damages to public trust resources.
Response 27: The Trustees agree that a defined, transparent process for selecting projects
to fund with the $750,000 cash payment is essential. At this time, the Trustees are
working on establishing that process. At a minimum, the process will assess the cost
effectiveness of projects to ensure that the funding is used to achieve the greatest possible
quantity of relevant natural resource benefits. The Trustees aim to achieve a balance
between recreation and habitat restoration projects. Projects that effectively improve
recreation opportunities and restore habitat, such as the Swan Pond restoration effort, are
a high priority because they accomplish multiple objectives.
RESTORATION MONITORING PLAN
Comment 28: When will the monitoring plan tailored to the specific characteristics of
the Swan Pond restoration be available for review? Will there be public participation?
Will monitoring reports be available for public review? How will these be made
available?
Response 28: The Trustees are in the process of finalizing the monitoring plan; it will be
completed after the RCDP is finalized. Swan Pond monitoring reports will be made
available by TDEC through the public record
Comment 29: What is the adaptive management strategy? What are its goals and what
are the attributes and metrics for determining strategy success? Should this strategy be
part of the monitoring plan?
Response 29: The adaptive management strategy allows the Trustees to ensure the
success of a restoration project in light of Trustee-approved project goals in the event that
circumstances require alternations of one or more project components. The monitoring
plan is designed to collect data that will inform whether adaptive management may be
needed. If an attribute is not performing as expected, TVA will critically evaluate the
issue and if needed will develop an adaptive management plan that will be reviewed and
approved by all Trustees prior to implementation. Examples of adaptive management
actions may include replanting species, changing plant species or densities, re-grading
banks, adjusting hydrological connections, and/or installing irrigation (Section 3.1.3).
Comment 30: There is a 30-year Monitoring Plan in place already via the EPA clean-up
and recovery efforts. It appears the one in this RCDP is a different one designed to
evaluate the Swan Pond Restoration project. Is this correct? And how does this RCDP
Plan consider or link to the EPA plan?
D-13
Response 30: The 30 year monitoring plan for Swan Pond is designed specifically to
ensure the long-term success of the project in the context of NRDA-related goals (e.g.,
habitat quality over time). It is not connected to the EPA monitoring plan, which is
focused on the success of remedial actions.
GENERAL
Comment 31: In addition to the TVA ash spill, there are many other factors that
adversely affect the assessment area, such as fish consumption advisories, a ban on
commercial fishing, and bioaccumulation of contaminants in the food web from residual
coal ash (e.g., selenium). I trust this will be thoroughly addressed sometime in the
foreseeable future.
Response 31: The Trustees acknowledge that there are considerations in the assessment
area other than impacts from the TVA-KIF ash spill, but these issues are outside the
scope of the NRDA.
REFERENCES
Arcadis. 2012. Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment. Including Appendices A-AC.
Prepared for TVA.).
EPA. 2000. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish
Advisories. Volume 2: Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits (Third
Edition).
Habicht, F.H. 1992. Guidance on Risk Characterization for Risk Managers and Risk
Assessors (Memorandum). Environmental Protection Agency.
Industrial Economics. 2009. Oak Ridge Reservation Natural Resource Damage
Assessment: Evaluation of Contaminant-Related Losses in Watts Bar Reservoir and
Gains from the Black Oak Ridge Conservation Easement. Prepared for Watts Bar
Reservoir Trustee Council.
Jacobs. 2010. Kingston Ash Recovery Project Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Embayment/Dredge Cell Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA). Appendix
B: Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment. Prepared for Tennessee Valley
Authority.
Jakus, P.M., M. Downing, M.S. Bevelhimer, and J.M. Fly. 1997. Do Sportfish
Consumption Advisories Affect Reservoir Anglers’ Site Choice. Agricultural and
Resource Economics Review 26(2).
Leith, K.F., W.W. Bowerman, M.R. Wierda, D.A. Best, T.G. Grubb, J.G. Sikarske. 2010.
A comparison of techniques for assessing central tendency in left-censored data
using PCB and p,p’DDE contaminant concentrations from Michigan’s Bald Eagle
Biosentinel Program. Chemospehere 80: 7-12.